= Pet pee Seer he Fe + beotkee. 4 weess' | 7" 
mretsenen nner eotany AAPL Pama PLS RH verre Absa m: “A 
Pe al chit ee PP * . wininas ’ rt 
) vanes _) paeercsen ” alg Ply ‘athe th praeed ' 4 " "i ’ 
pubes tee sag yeh san he aembon a + yr 
Ne EE Ss enc anpeeen rty Wbe See wh ye gH Ae tot 
eoameases nA m3 apenas 
Be eee a dundh ducsoert spars Laan Oe vn : yi aracyeneeten Hitieo shia 
, > nt Hiccsaeehgheree Uh aan nay uo "i Senet 
mre tbst 08d 
Mg ye 4/4) 
aby 


+ Pep bh tbo Ry dA 
Ait A oer dre 
Natio ee baen 4 


Esateasaies : ; 
fag, ‘ " Pte ' He 
Pe ate bee tt b ee re de 
rat Heb Phe babe bee by lle 0 hci pabas Penge a aime sya pale ; 4 ; aA , Wie salls tia eae 
pays Ab 529 eet Gt FY LAhe Pa pribeegtey oa ‘ Hey ; saa hale 
5 Ae Weer Syed apt aude es pagina tt ihe ad boaret Ht atte 
: ote sett y Pe they Boentite abe asia ' tals 


5 } biprit! i i ant Hi 

pat yeaa iM os Aig Hah f 7 ArH Ants 

bert Ee $ pied pt er3 ‘ Talk bakes i : si 
4 baeater’s 
iyt Palin 


oh 
ght 


pitiasl 
ate ra, " 13 . 


Vip gt 98 foe ' Ife hd iat 
au até py ie eR f app are ee bein ae 
mid Mededied MATTOS TG r4-4) 


; nie 
seit Hear j ! 

: sa anid ( ui 
Rati vat iat 


siseoasieils 
cas 


i 


jen 
aay 


aoe 
Sees 


as 


TiAl de 
thy 


iia 


wee 
aH i 


ihe 


L 
Neat ipee: 
eeensiae 

sith baat at 


piety 


theta yh 
nv 


fiche 


Lt 
Red athe beth AvHE Hat ae * 
Ht PEC Lan Gt Mlle RULE 
wea iat { basin bap ity Nea i arias 
LCR Mi \ ; a asduae three alt bd 

I Hi ‘ My H? Ba 
# oY {; Rat “ 


44 


Hive 


fa 
Pa Suras 
Soest 

“a athe Peaa sae: 
TE a oa 


th bet 


aye hh q 
ead teh etted 


Reo aed 
rheiieeh 


beds be 
rhe 2 








BX 9559 .R8 1924 

Rust, Herman, 1816-1905. 

The theological views and 
teachings of Dr. Herman | 





Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2022 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


httos://archive.org/details/theologicalviewsOOrust 











DR. HERMAN RUST 











COPYRIGHTED 1924 
By J. B. RUST 


ea» 





I~ 


A MEMORIAL VOLUME 


The Theological Views 
and Teachings 


Dr. Herman Rust 


Compiled and edited by his son 
RVs ob enol. PheD2. D:D: 


TIFFIN, OHIO 
COMMERCIAL PRINTING CO. 
1924 


IN MEMORIAM 


Dedicated to the former students, the Ministers, and 
Alumni, associated with Heidelberg Theological 
Seminary in years gone by in Tiffin, Ohio, 
and 
Inscribed to the Central Theological Seminary 

in Dayton, Ohio, 


In affectionate memory of their parents. 


JOHN BENJAMIN RUST 
MARY KATHERINE RUST 
HERMAN SAMUEL RUST 
EUGENE CALVIN RUST 


DED LD: 
ANNO DOMINI 
1924 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


Page 
Biographical Sketch... 22.0.0... sce scesee tees ce scrers 6 
FOTW Bre Set ee ete o bin ie Grigg Coote Gd sala, oh5) 8 9 
Homiletics and the Ministry ..............0eee eee ceees 11 
Tied CYGETLOLW OFSNiDPle es ose eis cue nies pees eee se 14 
The Essential Characteristics of a Sermon............-. 17 
The Scope of the Sermon ......... 00. eseecnserevenes 7a 
Saekingras Dette: (ce ates ee: ates Dupe eevee ke ones 22 
hee elOCLIONEOi Ay L OXtiioe ete aides ao cera a Se etait im oar 25 
The Scriptures, Science and the Church ............... 26 
ThevA nalonys Oise alin cr rits ee eat sa ame cscs ale o> « 33 
ESTAS ERE AH GR Ca ee Ree aera ara ae) 37 
The Principles of Interpretation ..............-eeee eee 50 
The Application of these Principles to the Work Itself.... 65 
Catechetics and the Heidelberg Catechism .............. 67 
Mea MACaneNncecOfsraltiiecw: sccm etna: sole aialstectas og Ss ie 74 
The Church, the Sacraments, Catechetics, and Missions... 78 
Pel cre VL CASUL ISIN Soe Sue eat cere eee Tae nln eck aia ene: SoG ate oot 89 
Mahon 7 altrarof Church IL listorys cy vee eens frat siiste slaw oe 92 


The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century in the Light of 
theaeNineteenth: GCentury.cccee so oe oe ne Sa tle sie bes 101 


Biographical Sketch 


eR EV. HERMAN RUST, D. D., was born on December 
Re 8, 1816, in the Free City of Bremen, Germany. He 
ei landed in America on March 18, 1841. Part of his 

education he received in the schools of his native city. 
He was a baker by trade and worked for a while in Patterson 
and Hackensack, New Jersey. Returning to New York City, 
he responded to an urgent call from Dr. John Williamson 
Nevin, and from Rev. John C. Guldin to study for the Gospel 
Ministry. He attended Mercersburg College and Theological 
Seminary, in Mercersburg, Pa., from 1842 to 1849. He was 
licensed and ordained by Lebanon Classis, at Johnstown, Pa., 
and installed as pastor of the Millersville Charge, near Lancas- 
ter, Pa. By appointment of the Board of Home Missions of 
the Reformed Church in the United States, he succeeded Rev. 
Emanuel V. Gerhart, D. D., in Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1851, as 
pastor of a German missionary congregation. On October 9, 
1855, he entered into the marriage relation with Elizabeth, nee 
Giesy, of Lancaster, Ohio (1822-1902). Elected by the Ohio 
Synod to the Second Professorship in the Heidelberg Theolog- 
ical Seminary, he moved to Tiffin, Ohio, with his family, in 
1862. Dr. Emanuel V. Gerhart and Dr. Moses Kieffer, the 
latter succeeding the former, were the incumbents of the First 
Professorship of Theology in the Heidelberg Theological Semi- 
nary. When the Second, or German, Professorship was estab- 
lished in the Seminary, Dr. Herman Rust was chosen as the 
first incumbent. In 1868 the Ohio Synod named his professor- 
ship the Chair of Exegetical and Historical Theology. He also 
served the Second Reformed congregation of Tiffin as acting 
pastor for twenty-five years. He was an exegete of unusual 
ability and a pulpit orator of great power. He resigned his 
professorship in the Seminary in 1902. On August 8, 1905, 
his long and useful career came to a close. 


[6] 


Among his literary remains he left quite a number of man- 
uscripts on various Theological subjects and on Church His- 
tory, as well as sermons delivered on special occasions, and a 
great many sermon outlines. The contents of this memorial 
volume have been carefully selected by the compiler and editor, 
from those manuscripts, representative of his father’s Theolog- 
ical views and religious convictions, and as a contribution, from 
the Christian Evangelical standpoint, toward the solution of the 
overwhelming difficulties of our time. 

Heidelberg Theological Seminary, founded in 1850, in 
Tiffin, Ohio, and the Ursinus School of Theology, founded in 
Collegeville, Pa., in 1871, entered into a Compact of Union 
in 1907, as: The Central Theological Seminary of the Reformed 
Church in the United States. The present memorial volume 
grew out of an address delivered by the writer in response to 
an invitation from the Faculty of the Central Theological Sem- 
inary, on December 14, 1916, in Dayton, Ohio, where the 
Institution is located, in connection with the celebration of the 
centennial anniversary of the birth of Dr. Herman Rust. 


ee Da tte 


C7] 





FOREWORD 


Ae] S LONG as a man is in active service anywhere in the 
fields of research and human endeavor he can speak for 
himself. After he is gone and the place that knew him 
knows him no more forever, if he was of some worth 
to the world by contributing to the betterment of mankind 
through the nobler channels of knowledge, by conscientious 
and consecrated service as a teacher of men, and by a consistent 
and forceful Christian example, one must concede it to be an 
inestimable privilege and a rare opportunity to be permitted to 
make him speak again through the avenue of his written testi- 
mony and the record of his maturer thought. 

It is always interesting to possess some acquaintance with 
a student's method of work, for his methods of study are the 
approach to, and help one to understand, his achievements. 
Dr. Herman Rust was a meditative man and a man of few 
words, habituated to silent contemplative thought to such a 
degree that he took very little part as a rule in ordinary conver- 
sation even at table, because of his absorption in his prepara- 
tion for the classroom and the pulpit. This was especially the 
case during the morning hours of the day. After breakfast he 
immediately withdrew to his study and closed the door against 
all intruders. At such a juncture it was useless to seek an 
interview with him concerning trivial matters and interests. 
The table talk was left to the other members of the family and 
to visitors or guests. Meditative moods were so thoroughly 
characteristic of him that he carried his thoughtfulness into the 
garden, where, in the midst of his physical labor, in which he 
engaged for the sake of recreation and economy, he wrought 
out many of his sermons step by step, and mentally reviewed 
the scope of his lesson periods for his students. At the 
same time he regarded careful investigation and application 
in the study as being absolutely necessary for the acquire- 


[9] 





10 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


ment of vocational efficiency. He often repeated the saying in 
the presence of younger persons around him: ‘‘Wenn mann 
Etwas lernen will so muss mann Sitzfleisch haben.’’ (If one 
wants to learn anything one must have sitting capacity). 

He was a serious man in every sense of the word. He 
enjoyed a measure of harmless fun when it chanced to drift in 
his direction, but he never sought for it, and never indulged in 
loud unrestrained laughter. He believed that the Christian 
life, the life in Christ, separates the converted heart and soul 
from the unstable, unsatisfying, empty ambitious pursuits and 
the sinful indulgences of the present world. This conviction he 
never suspended, and according to this conviction he moulded 
his career, instructed his family, and directed his labors in the 
ministry, in the field of education, and in the relations of busi- 
ness. He frequently asked his classes the question: ** What is 
the greatest of all miracles?’’ Some students would answer: 
‘The Virgin Birth of Jesus,”’ or ‘‘The Resurrection of Jesus 
from the dead.’” His rejoinder always was: ‘*‘You are mis- 
taken! The greatest miracle in all the world is the regenera- 
tion and salvation of a human soul.’’ In his view the ministry 
and the Church are divinely appointed organic agencies through 
whose instrumentality, based upon the word of God, the world 
is to be brought to Christ, and through Him to obtain salvation. 
Thus he assigned an important place in Christian activity to the 
Gospel Ministry and to Homiletics. Hence at this point we 
begin our digest of his views, conclusions and teachings in the 
field of Biblical Interpretation, Church History, and the His- 
tory of Christian Doctrine. 


JOHN B. RUST. 
Tiffin, Ohio, August, 1923. 


Homiletics and the Ministry 


deeper and more intuitive than secular eloquence. Elo- 
quence is the product of ideas, and these ideas are 
received from Divine Revelation. Hence familiarity 
with the Word of God is essential to eloquence. Lord Bacon 
said that man as a philosopher is the minister and interpreter of 
Nature. The philosopher does not originate truth. He is only 
an honest inquirer into, and a faithful expounder of, its mys- 
teries. In the realm of Theology man is also an interpreter, 
but more positive and direct in his ministrations. The reason 
for this is that God originated the World and the Truth in it. 
Thus Revelation is the product of His Intelligence, just as the 
world is the product of His Power. The sum total of Creation 
and Revelation leads back to the Infinite. 

Therefore the Theologian has no right to construe the 
Scriptures according to his own private opinion. In appre- 
hending the Revelation of the Eternal Mind man is not to be 
creative, but exegetical. Exegesis implies and presupposes a 
written word, a written revelation. An unwritten revelation 
cannot be the object of critical examination. Those persons 
who object to a written revelation, to a book-revelation, are 
mistaken. 

Biblical interpretation postulates a written revelation. A 
number of oratorical influences flow from the interpretation of 
God’s Word. It imparts originality to religious thinking and 
discourse. The sacred orator is quickened into freedom, fresh- 
ness and force by the analytical study of the Scriptures. These 
spiritual powers cannot be had in any other way. 

Originality is not the power to create or discover some- 
thing entirely new, for only God can create de novo. Origin- 
ality is relative. Plato was merely a faithful expounder of what 
God had inlaid in his own mental constitution. The constitu- 
tion of our minds is the same, and therefore we respond to the 


[11] 


c 


tl R. HERMAN RUST taught that sacred eloquence is 
Ri 


12 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


great things he said. Originality in the finite mind consists in 
the interpretation of what is given. This in the last analysis is 
Exegesis. Plato was not the author of his own intelligence. 
He was only its interpreter. 

Exegesis is: ‘‘The fruit of finished study.’’ It requires not 
only Philology, but a knowledge of every branch of the ancient 
sciences, and also of the analogy of faith, which was employed 
by Augustine and other epochal teachers in the past. Such an 
exegesis fills the soul with heavenly fire and is the well-spring 
of originality. Hooker, Taylor, Barrow and Bates in England 
were filled with the spirit and substance of the written revela- 
tion, in the Seventeenth Century. Even secular literature par- 
took of it, notably exhibited in the moral force possessed by the 
plays of Shakespeare. 

There is still another effect which exegesis has upon the 
functions of the Ministry. It endows the human mind with 
authority. ‘‘Tell us, by what authority doest thou these things? 
or who is he that gave thee this authority?’’ the chief priests 
and the scribes said to Jesus (Luke 20:2). It was natural for 
them to ask this question. By what right indeed does a poor 
sinful creature rise up to reveal facts or to make statements con- 
cerning the mysterious beginnings of human history, the plan 
and purposes of the Infinite, and the alternative, as a concluding 
declaration, of eternal life and eternal condemnation? If Divine 
Revelation is set aside the minister has no more right to speak 
upon these mysterious subjects than any other man. He pos- 
sesses this prerogative because he is endowed with the authority 
of a special Revelation. This authority is essential to the ser- 
vant of God, to make him feel free and fearless, to animate and 
inspire him. ‘‘Iam not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ,’’ 
says St. Paul. Divine Revelation is paramount to Divine 
Power. And power is the foundation of authority.* 

He held that the minister of the Gospel ought not only to 
be sound in his faith concerning the great realities of Revela- 
tion, and conscious of his mission as an ambassador of Christ, 
but that he ought also to unfold and exercise efficient adminis- 


*Homiletics. Document number one. 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST 4 


trative ability as a pastor. To a young man about to enter the 
active ministry he said: ‘*‘Halte dich zu den Alten, und laufe 
nicht zuviel umher mit den jungen Leuten in der Gemeinde.”’ 
(Associate yourself with the older people, and do not roam 
about too much with the young people in the congregation). 
When it was suggested to him on one occasion, by way of argu- 
ment, that the minister is the servant of the congregation, he 
answered: ‘‘Notat all! That is not true! The minister, on 
the contrary, is the shepherd of the flock. He is the leading 
member in the congregation. His name crowns the list of the 
membership. Though his station does not permit him to lord 
it over God’s heritage, with his wisdom, counsel and example, 
if he is to become a successful pastor, he must and will feed and 
guide his people. a 


The Order of Worship 


N O LESS important is the minister’s function in the ser- 
ho vice of worship in the Lord’s house. Dr. Herman Rust 
~2| believed in, and always conducted, an evangelical form 
of worship, characterized by dignity, solemnity and edifi- 
cation. His conviction and practice in this respect are indi- 
cated by a translation which he made many years ago for “‘The 
Reformed Church Messenger,’’ of the description of divine ser- 
vice in the early part of the Second Century, found in the writ- 
ings of Justin Martyr, who wrote his account of the order of 
worship in the Christian Church in that Age about the year 
188 or 189 A. D. Justin Martyr says: 


‘*Those who have become convinced of the truth. of our 
doctrine, and have determined to live in accordance with it, 
are first exhorted to prayer, fasting and repentance. Then we 
lead them to a place where there is water, and here they are 
baptized in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy 
Ghost. Thus out of children of necessity and ignorance they 
become children of election, of divine wisdom, and of the for- 
giveness of sin. Baptism we also call enlightenment, because 
the soul (or mind) is thereby enlightened to know divine things. 
After having thus cleansed the believing brother by the washing 
of baptism, we conduct him into the assembly of the brethren, 
who then pray for him and for Christians of all places, that God 
may grant them knowledge, and grace to prove this knowledge 
by a pious life. After prayer we give each other the brotherly 
kiss. Then the minister (or deacon) brings bread and a cup of 
water and wine to the brethren. Thereupon he offers prayer 
and thanksgiving to God, to which the congregation says: 
Amen! Then the minister gives the bread and the cup of 
wine and water to every one present. This we call Eucharist, 
meaning the same as thanksgiving, the celebration of the Holy 
Supper. In this transaction only the faithiul participate; for 


[14 ] 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST 15 


we do not receive this as common meat and drink, but as the 
Logos has entered into union with Christ, so the food, we are 
taught, blessed by prayer, is for us a bread of life, the flesh and 
blood of that Jesus who was made flesh, from which our blood 
and flesh by transmutation are nourished. . . .. For the pos- 
session of all our gifts we praise God. On Sunday all assemble 
together, from the city and country, and read the writings of 
the Apostles (the Gospels), and likewise the Prophets (the Old 
Testament). After the reader has ceased to read, the Deacon 
(minister) gives an exhortation to live according to that which 
has been read. Then we all arise to pray. After this the 
Eucharist is celebrated (every Sunday as described above). To 
those who are absent they carry away a portion. And they 
who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and 
what is collected is deposited with the president (minister), who 
succors the orphans and widows, and those who, through sick- 
ness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in 
bonds, and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word 
takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on 
which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first 
day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness 
and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on 
the same day rose from the dead.’’ (See The First Apology 
of Justin, chapter 47). 


It will be observed, says Dr. Herman Rust, that this 
description is wanting in one point. It does not mention sing- 
ing, whilst we know from intimations in the Scriptures, and 
from other writings, that the singing of Psalms and hymns was 
commonly practiced among the early Christians. In other 
respects the testimony of Justin is reliable. The worship com- 
menced with singing, was continued with prayer, and then fol- 
lowed with the reading of Scripture, which passed over into 
preaching, the delivery of a discourse in which some passage 
of the Scriptures was expounded. This done, the Lord’s Sup- 
per was celebrated, prayer again offered, and the benediction 
pronounced. 

This description of the order of worship in the Christian 


16 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


Church before and during the time of Justin Martyr was cited 
to remind the ministers and people of the Reformed Church in 
this later day that in it they possess an authoritative model for 
true evangelical worship in the House of God. Let it be under- 
stood, in passing, that Justin Martyr does not teach the doc- 
trine of Transubstantiation in his famous utterance concerning 
the Eucharist. Justin plainly calls the one element bread, but 
says it is not ‘‘common bread.’’ As late as the close of the 
Fifth century, Gelasius, Bishop of Rome (490 A. D.) declared: 
‘‘By the sacraments we are made partakers of the divine nature, 
and yet the substance and nature of bread and wine do not 
cease to bein them.”’ (See the original in Bingham’s Antiqui- 
ties, book xv., cap. 5. See also C. F. Roessler, Die Kirchen- 
Vaeter, vol. x., page 636. Leipzig 1786).* Dr. Herman Rust 
interpreted the words of Justin concerning the Holy Eucharist 
in accordance with the traditional teaching of the Reformed 
Church, as set forth in the Heidelberg Catechism.t Moreover 
in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, when he served as min- 
istrant, he never half-whispered the words of institution to the 
individual communicants assembled in successive groups along 
the altar-railing, before the communion table, as if the service 
is a priestly act in an oratory; but he pronounced the words of 
institution loud enough, yet with reverential solemnity befitting 
the occasion, to be heard by everyone in the church. He did 
this because according to the consistent practice of the Reformed 
Church, and in his view, the celebration of the Eucharist is a 
service of spiritual communion with the Risen Christ, in which 
the whole congregation participates. This in like manner 
applies to the rite of baptism. 

He also placed great emphasis upon the character and pur- 
pose of the sermon in public worship. His personal convic- 
tions and methods in this respect followed the practice and 
example of the Christian Church in her periods and regions of 
noblest activity, before, and notably after, the Reformation of 
the Sixteenth Century, wherever true Evangelical doctrine and 
life gained the ascendancy. 


*Document number three. tFisher, History of Christisn Doctrine, p. 68. 


The Essential Characteristics 
of a Sermon 
Y N ORDER that a sermon may be truly worthy of its name 


,| it must have a twofold object in view: First, the edifica- 
A} tion of those in the congregation who are converted, 

and, Second, the conversion of those who are still liv- 
ing in unconcerned sinfulness. And this object is to be reached 
by the earnest exposition and faithful application of the Word 
of God, the Law and the Gospel. 

The Word of God is the proper basis of the sermon, and 
the exposition and application of the Word of God constitute 
the method of the sermon. If the sermon is really to accom- 
plish anything it must not be merely a good speech, but rather 
an action in words. However in order to be such an action, 
in its preparation and delivery, the minister stands in need of 
the entire treasure of theological knowledge which the Church 
has gradually acquired for herself; and in order that the right 
application of God’s holy Word may be made, he must possess 
a personal experience of the power of the Law and the Gospel. 
He must perform the divine work not as a mere natural man, 
like a statesman, but as a spiritual man, as a living member of 
the believing congregation. 

Exposition and application must not be separated, but 
united, penetrating each other in such a way that the exposition 
will naturally lead to the application, and the application flow 
from the exposition. A great many ministers employ the text 
only as an introduction, until a favorite theme has been 
obtained. After that they lay the Scriptures aside and feed the 
congregation with their own wisdom and thoughts, no matter 
whether they are adapted to the text or not. This is altogether 
wrong, because the people stand in need of God’s Word, and 
the minister has been set apart to preach it. 

In expounding the Scriptures the minister may be guided 
by the train of thought contained in the text and thus make his 


Le] 


5 
U 


18 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


sermon mainly explicative. Or he may be guided by the psyco- 
logical train of thought which the application to the scope sug- 
gests to him, so that the sermon will be principally applicative. 
Or he may interweave the one with the other. 

All sermons are explicative in which the text is expounded 
step by step, as for example St. John 1:45-51. (1) How Na- 
thaniel is called, v. 45. (2) How Nathaniel struggles, v. 46— 
struggles with doubt, but honest doubt, v. 47, and with prayer, 
v. 48. (3) How Nathaniel is conquered, vv. 47,49. Another 
example is the following: Genesis 32:9-12. Theme: Jacob's 
Prayer. (1) His faith. (2) His confession. (3) His thanksgiv- 
ing, or gratitude. (4) His supplication. Those sermons also 
are explicative which do not strictly follow the thoughts of the 
text. For example: St. Luke 15:3-7, The Parable of the Lost 
Sheep. (1) Who is the lost sheep? (2) Who are the ninety 
and nine other sheep? (3) Who is the Shepherd that seeks the 
lost sheep? Again: Isaiah 40:9-12. The Rejoicing of the 
Church at the coming of the Lord. (1) From whom does it pro- 
ceed? From God. From the preacher in the wilderness. 
From the daughter of Zion. (2) What is its meaning? (3) How 
is it manifested? With joy. With power. Without fear. 
Luke 7:36-50. The Anointing of Christ by Mary Magdalene. 
(1) The Persons. Pharisees. The great sinner. (2) The words 
of Jesus—spoken to both. 

Applicative sermons on the other hand are determined by 
the scope, as for example, as indicated by the following subjects: 
Inclination to Pleasures; The Love of Money; Running after 
Riches; Indolence in, or Neglect of Prayer; Public Offenses, 
or whatever else may arise in the church or the community. 
Thereby the sermon is determined, so that the application, and 
not the exposition, becomes the principal thing. 

The explicative, or homiletical, sermon does not necessarily 
require a theme and divisions, because these do not determine 
its character. The theme and divisions do not constitute an 
applicative or thematical sermon, since its inner nature does 
not depend upon them. But every good sermon must have 
internal unity, a united scope, as well as also an organic train 
of thought, no matter whether the succession of thoughts be 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST 19 


determined by the content of the textual exposition or by parts 
of the application of the text. This inner organization, or 
articulation, of the sermon must not necessarily always and 
everywhere come to light externally. This should be the case 
only where the limited appreciative ability of the congregation 
requires it. Just as the beauty of the human form is enhanced 
by the covering of flesh and blood which hides the frame-work 
of bones, so a sermon also appears more touching and attrac- 
tive when its skeleton is concealed. But the power of appre- 
hension as a general thing is feeble in our congregations, and 
for this reason it is better to announce the text and the divisions 
distinctly, in order to engage the reflection of the people and 
direct the attention immediately to the principal parts, or turn- 
ing points, in the discourse, that every hearer may know with 
the help of every division where he now is in his devotions. A 
striking, attractive division of the subject easily impresses itself 
upon the mind, so that afterwards the hearer will be able to recall 
the content of the sermon. However, that they may be readily 
remembered, the parts must logically exclude each other. The 
following example will serve as an illustration. Theme: Light 
or Darkness, which do we want? (1) Not darkness, but light. 
(2) Light, and therefore freedom from darkness. A logical 
division of the same subject would be this: Light. (1) Its nature. 
(2) Its cause. (3) Its effects, or consequences. 

The announcement of the theme and the divisions may be 
made in three different ways. First, every part may again be 
mentioned in the progress of the sermon, by saying, for exam- 
ple: We have now seen—or: We now come to the ques- 
tion—or: to the second, third, fourth part. In this manner 
the flow of the discourse is somewhat interrupted. In the sec- 
ond place, the transition toa new part or division may be so 
interwoven with the movement of the thought as to make it 
perceptible merely by the raising of the voice, in this manner 
for example: Yea, so the Lord has promised. We are to be 
saved by the hearing of God’s Word. But, my dear friends, 
are we indeed genuine hearers? Not those who merely hear 
are saved, but those who also keep the Word of God. Or one 
may choose this approach: Yes, the promise is given us that 


20 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


all things work together for our good. But, dear friends, do we 
love God? We need to remember that this promise is given 
only to those who love Him. In the third place, the announce- 
ment of the theme and the divisions may be left out entirely, 
as was done by many of the ancient preachers.* 


* At this point a parenthetical reference is made to some work by 
Saurin, to his Discours (Amsterdam, 1720 and 1728), or to a volume of his 
collected sermons (The Hague, 1749), and to paragraph 172. Dr. Herman 
Rust frequently mentioned Saurin with great admiration and praise. Jaques 
Saurin (1677-1730) was the most powerful and most famous pulpit orator 
of French Protestantism. Immediately after the Revocation of the Edict 
of Nantes (1685 A. D.) his father, a learned jurist, fled with his family to 
Geneva, the asylum of French Protestant refugees, and there educated his 
three sons, especially the oldest, Jaques, who soon after the completion of 
his studies became one of the most wonderful Gospel preachers of the mod- 
ern world. He was a man of imposing presence, entrancing and sweeping 
eloquence, and incredible spiritual power. In Holland he preached to vast 
multitudes and thousands of French refugees flocked to the great church 
over which he presided. 

Herzog, Real-Encyklopaedie der prot. Theologie, vol. 13, p. 439. 


The Scope of the Sermon 


ROM THE OUTLINES we have given illustrative of 
the fundamental character of sermons, it must be evi- 
dent to us that every sermon stands in need of a well 
determined scope, since without this it will inevitably 

sink to the level of an aimless talk. For in this lies the object 

of the sermon, while the text is commonly used only as a means 
to reach this object or end. Hence the first step in the prepa- 
ration of a sermon is the meditation upon the scope, and this 
meditation must be engaged in by the minister with all due 
earnestness. He must honestly confront himself with the 
question: What do I want to accomplish with this sermon? 

To what point of repentance, of faith, of love, of saving knowl- 

edge do I wish to bring my congregation? Where do my peo- 

ple stand in regard to the subject before me, and whither do I 

want to lead them? 

Through an earnest meditation like this the minister will 
naturally be directed either from the text to a scope, or from 
the scope to a text. If for example he preaches successively on 
a large part of Scripture, or if he is particularly impressed by a 
single passage, he will readily also see for what object he may 
use it. And when his pastoral care and observation have 
revealed to him certain faults and needs, or evils, in the congre- 
gation, he will soon be able to find a text which will be suitable 
for his purpose. 





[ 21 ] 


Seeking a Text 


FTER THE MINISTER has fixed his mind upon a cer- 
tain point or subject of saving truth, or of the Christian 
life which he desires to impress upon the hearts of the 
congregation, and to which he wishes to lead his hear- 

ers, then he must first consider this scope from every side before 

he begins to seek for a suitable text. The reason for this is 
that the suitableness of the text depends upon the proper appre- 
hension of the nature and extent of the scope. Therefore the 
study of the scope requires a great deal of time and cannot 
always be accomplished in the minister’s study. In his pastoral 
visits, in his solitary walks, in bed before falling asleep, at home 
and abroad, wherever an opportunity offers itself, he must 
calmly consider the object of his sermon. If some particular 
evil which it is his duty to remove, exists in the congregation, 
he will have to search for all its roots and ramifications, and 
this must not be done according to some prescription in a book, 
or in accordance with the opinion of the people, but in keep- 
ing with the facts of real life. It must be correctly apprehended 
in its connection with the nature of the unconverted man and 
according to its own peculiarity. The causes of it must be 
known, as well as the means by which it has unfolded, together 
with the special and local hindrances which obstruct its removal. 

All these things demand careful consideration. 

And furthermore, the minister must search for and study 
the motive of saving knowledge best adapted to the condition, 
the motive which is calculated to captivate the understanding 
and will, the conscience and heart. He is also to seek for the 
points of contact in the moral and Christian consciousness of 
the congregation, for it would be foolish and useless to build 
proofs and admonitions upon promises which are not at hand 
and find no faith in the congregation. One, for example, who 
does not believe in original sin, cannot from that premise be — 
convinced of the necessity of salvation, but must first be con- 


[ 22 ] 





OF DR. HERMAN RUST 23 


vinced of original sin through the reality of actual sins. The 
minister must always and everywhere seek for the remnants of 
the knowledge of truth which are yet to be found in the hearts 
_ of the people, and these remnants he must use as points of con- 
tact and connection for his discourse, just as was done by the 
Apostles. On the day of Pentecost the Apostle Peter began 
his sermon with the prophecy of Joel in which the Jews 
believed (Acts 2:16). He did not begin with the Divinity of 
Christ, in which they had no faith. Then he directed their 
minds to the signs and miracles by which he had proved himself 
to be a man from God, and this in like manner they were not 
able to deny. Had he at once opened his discourse with the 
presentation of the Divinity of Christ, they would in all proba- 
bility have turned away from him, or caused him to be silenced. 

Saint Paul in Athens did not begin his discourse with ref- 
erences to the Old Testament, but directed the attention of the 
listeners to the altar erected to the Unknown God, as a smal! 
remnant of an anticipation of Truth. Thus we also, as minis~ 
ters of Christ, must begin with vantage grounds of truth and 
fact to which the congregation cannot refuse to yield assent. 
And then we must lead the people step by step further on, not 
according to the rules of abstract logic, but according to the 
principles and laws of Christian psychology. Having thus by a 
mature, calm and repeated meditation become fully conscious 
of the course that is to be pursued and of the different vantage 
points that have to be successively presented in order that we 
may reach the object of our design, it will then be compara- 
tively easy to find a passage of Scripture in which all the requi- 
site grounds or moments are contained. This of course requires 
the study and understanding of the Bible, and even where these 
are at hand mental toil and effort are still required for the dis- 
covery of a wholly suitable text. 

That we may present this subject still more clearly, let us 
take as an example a minister who designs to defend Religion 
against the charge that, instead of filling the world with peace, 
it fills it with contention and strife. This accusation is his 
scope, which he must clearly and fully understand. He must 
be conscious of this entire phenomenon, and then show that 


24 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


the objection, or accusation, is really well founded, for it is 
indeed in the nature and relation of Christianity to bring con- 
tention and strife. Then he has to prove that the peace dis- 
turbed and destroyed by Religion is not the proper peace, and 
that Religion does indeed bring real peace, and that this genuine 
peace is to be acquired by warfare. Consequently Religion, 
instead of deserving blame, deserves praise for bringing dissatis- 
faction and strife into the world. The minister has to show 
plainly that the natural peace among men is unsound and rotten, 
and that the apparent peace of our consciences is false and dan- 
gerous, and then demonstrate how and why Religion destroys 
this peace, and that in the last analysis its final object always is 
to administer and bring about the true peace with God. Mat- 
thew 10:34-38 would be a suitable text for this subject. Christ 
is the Prince of Peace, and yet He does not bring peace, but a 
sword. He takes the false peace away from men in order to 
establish the true. 


The Selection of a Text 


I] N SELECTING a text the minister may be guided either 
le _ by the present want of his congregation, or by the cus- 
|} tom of the Church according to which the sacred trans- 

actions are to be performed. On this point different 
views exist. On the one hand it is asserted and maintained 
that the minister has to use only the texts which are prescribed 
by the Church, while on the other hand the right and necessity 
of freedom in the choice of texts is just as firmly defended. If 
the minister is a servant of the Church to which he belongs, 
then he is obliged to follow her laws and rubrics. Thus the 
one side judges, while the other side holds that, since preaching 
and pastoral care are entrusted to the minister, the less impor- 
tant matter, the selection of the texts, shall also be entrusted to 
him. In the Lutheran Church, in which the presentation of 
Biblical and Church doctrines is looked upon as the principal 
object of worship and preaching, this view is more rigidly 
enforced, or at least adhered to. In the Reformed Church, as 
we know, conservatism is less exacting and greater freedom 
obtains in the official relations of the minister. 

Distinctions like these, and at this point, quite naturally 
raise the question of the relation between the use of the Holy 
Scriptures and the Christian Church. Dr. Herman Rust also 
possessed definite views in this field of doctrine and instruction, 
and recognized the existence of a conflict between Science and 
the Church. He recorded some of his views on these impor- 
tant subjects. We quote froma paper or lecture he prepared 
upon this great and earnest problem. 


[ 25 J 


The Scriptures, Science and the 
Church 


‘le HERE IS THUS a conflict between the Church and 
Science. If the Church should yield the right of inter- 
pretation to every one, then the very content of her 

faith becomes exposed to great danger. And if Science 
accepts the prescription of the Church, then all scientific inves- 
tigation would be at an end. So much is certain, namely, that 
the Church and her rules cannot be set aside. For without the 
Church there could be no Christian Theology, because it is 
only in the Church that the whole of Theology finds its home. 
Without reference to the Church, Science loses its theological 
character. The inherent law of self-preservation requires the 
Church to guard her historical treasures against individual scien- 
tific caprice. The natural relation of the Church to the Scrip- 
tures proves this to be the truth. Christ and His disciples 
commenced with the Old Testament, which they regarded and 
used as an inspired record of the revelation of God. It was 
only gradually, after the early Christians had already had many 
battles with prevailing heresies, that the New Testament writ- 
ings were raised to the same degree of respect and authority 
possessed by the writings of the Old Testament. This elevation 
was preceded by their Christian faith. On the ground of, and 
by this faith the Old Testament had been adopted, for the faith 
in Christ was already moving and directing the Apostles when 
they began to believe firmly in the Old Testament Scriptures as 
a testimony to Christ, and in this sense divine. Hence they 
soon afterward commenced to prove from the Old Testament 
that Jesus was the Messiah. But this proof they could not 
have advanced if their own personal faith in Christ had not 
been already established. It would therefore be wrong to say 
that the Christian Church received her faith from the Old Tes- 
tament Scriptures. On the contrary, the Person of Christ was 


[ 26 ] 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST Zi 


the real source and ground of faith, and the Scriptures were 
regarded as a work of Christ’s Spirit. This Spirit the Church 
herself possessed. The writings of the Apostles were never 
quoted as 7) ypad1, in the sense of an authority as in Ezra 
2:62, Nehemiah 7: 64, Ezechiel 13:9, or as in relation to the 
Law by the LX X in connection with I Chronicles 15:15, and 
II Chronicles 30:5, 18, though they were regarded as having 
been written by the Spirit, but only in and through the general 
Spirit that had been poured out upon all the faithful. The 
elevation of the writings of the Apostles followed only toward 
the close of the Second Century. The faith and life of the 
Church had been in existence a long time before the New Tes- 
tament writings were considered to be divine in the same meas- 
ure as the Old Testament. 

Many hold thatin the great Reformation of the Sixteenth 
Century the Scriptures produced the then prevailing faith. 
This is wrong, because faith in the Scriptures, though obscured, 
had never been entirely lost. But the true knowledge of divine 
and holy things in the Church had been rendered uncertain, 
whilst the Scriptures alone remained the same. Therefore the 
prevailing desire to return to fundamentals could be satisfied 
only by the Holy Scriptures. 

All true Christian faith does not depend primarily upon 
the Scriptures, but upon the Person of the Savior, and on the 
impression He makes upon the individual. This impression 
of Christ is preserved and exhibited in the New Testament, and 
whoever feels its power begins to trust in Him and in the 
Scriptures, and will acknowledge in them the operation of the 
Holy Spirit.* 


*EXPLANATORY NOTE.—If it can be shown that the New Testa- 
ment writings existed at a very early period in the life of the primitive 
Christian communities, the apparently compulsory, but actually misleading, 
concession to Roman and Anglican Catholicism on the part of Evangelical 
Protestantism, that the New Testament writings, even the Synoptic Gospels, 
grew up from, and are the cream of, original or primitive Chriatian tradition, 
would be forever laid to rest. Evangelical Protestantism inherited this 
view, this dogma, from the Mediaeval and Primitive Catholic Church, and 
accepted it in association with the appeal of the Sixteenth Century Reform- 


28 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


ers to the supreme testimony of Holy Scripture. A paralogism, a 
Trugschluss, a false dogmatic conclusion based upon a false premise, and 
exceedingly troublesome to Evangelical Christians, seems to be involved in 
this position. It is derived from an innocent, well-meant, ill defined, but 
not altogether harmless juggling with the word Church in connection with, 
and in relation to, the New Testament. Later representative assemblages, 
coupled with tradition in limited degree and in the best sense of the word, 
established the Canon of the New Testament, but the sacred historical, 
doctrinal, epistolary and prophetic writings of the New Testament were not 
created by any prevenient concensus of the membership of the Early Church. 
Those writings are the testimony of original witnesses who knew Jesus and 
were instrumental by word of mouth, by written testimony, and by mar- 
tyrdom, in helping to gather the first Christian communities. Therefore 
when provincial synods and ecumenical councils in later periods of Christian 
history fixed the Canon by sifting processes and by appeals to early tradi- 
tion, they not only declared their faith in, but bound themselves and all 
posterity by, the authority of Holy Scripture in the fundamental teaching 
and conduct. 

In the course of the centuries corruptions crept into the Church. The 
idea of the priesthood, of a real sacrifice in the Holy Communion, and the 
whole structure of the Papal system arose, representing a radical, sweeping 
and destructive departure of the Catholic Church from the historically 
accepted standards of her own character and mission. For this reason the 
reformatory movements in various countries antedating the upheaval of the 
Sixteenth Century, and the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century itself, 
find justification for their essential contentions, grievances, charges, and 
demands, 

The career of Basilides, the oldest of the primitive Christian Gnostics, 
reflects much new light upon this signally important subject, as the learned 
P. Hofstede De Groot shows in his scholarly work, a book practically 
unknown among students of the New Testament in America. It is entitled: 
Basilides at the Close of the Apostolic Period as the First Witness for 
the Age and Authority of the New Testamant Writings, Especially 
the Gospel of John,in connection with Other Witnesses up to the 
Middle of the Second Century. The author of this work translated Con- 
stantine Tischendorf's: Wann wurden unsere Evangelien verfasst? into 
the Dutch language, and then wrote his own book as a companion-piece 
thereto. 

He places the highest valuation upon the discovery of the writings of 
Hippolytus, and adds that through an extended study of the early Patristic 
literature he reached the conviction, thus sharing the view of Tischendorf, 
that the evidences of the great age and early authority of the most impor- 
tant writings of the New Testament rest upon far firmer foundations than a 
multitude of learned investigators have hitherto suspected. He says that 
the erudite Church historian Hieronymus cites the fact that Basilides died 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST 29 


during the persecution of the Christians by Bar-Cochba (132-135 A. D.). 
At any rate he was no longer young, for he died in the year 135 at the 
latest, because he had lived long enough not only to have a son, but also a 
**genuine’’ disciple in, Isodorus, If he died in the year 135, he was sixty 
years old and had been born in the year 75 A. D. If he was seventy years 
old when he died, then he was born in the year 65 A.D. In the former 
case he lived for twenty-five (25) years, in the latter for about thirty-five 
(35) years, during the life time of the Apostle John, as well as that of 
Matthias and other Apostles. We are therefore justified in asserting that 
Basilides was a contemporary of those Apostles who lived the longest, as 
Hieronymus himself openly declared. Hence Basilides appeared upon the 
stage of action in the years 97-117 A. D., during the reign of the Emperor 
Trajan. 

‘*But we must conclude further, as I have already indicated, that in the 
public estimation of the Christians the books of the New Testament stood 
just as high in the time of Basilides as in his own view, because, in order to 
commend his system to them, he in their presence appealed to the books 
which he interpreted according to his manner, as sacred, or Holy Scrip- 
tures. I do not wish to be misunderstood when I speak of the divine 
authority. Thereby I do not mean an authority ascribed to them by some 
ecclesiastical assemblage, for at that early period there were no synods. 
They came later, originating in the year 170, against the Montanists. 
I mean that authority which arose spontaneously from public opinion, from 
the common impression, which the Christians possessed concerning those 
writings, concerning both their authors and their content. During the life- 
time and shortly atter the death of the Apostles and their most eminent 
disciples, such as Mark and Luke, exactly the same thing happened which 
occurred in Germany while Klopstock, Herder, Wieland, Voss, Schiller 
and Goethe were still living and when they died. Without the declaration 
of a jury the concensus of public opinion acknowledged them to be the gen- 
uine, classical, and standard authorities and leaders in the art of poetry. In 
like manner this was the case in the Christian Church for nearly three 
hundred years, with the writings of the New Testament. For the first time, 
in the year 361, an ecclesiastical assembly, and a provincial synod at that, 
declared those books to be canonical which the public mind had for a long 
period of time regarded as being holy.”’ 

**When this light dawned upon me by means of Basilides I could hardly 
place confidence in myself. Therefore I devoted myself anew to the study 
of the origin of the Gnostic sects, to discover whether a clearer light would 
come to me in connection with this wonderful phenomenon. Does Basilides 
stand alone? No! All that we know about the oldest of the Gnostics is 
fully verified concerning the oldest Gnostic system builders of Christian 
antiquity.’" (Hofstede De Groot, pp. 8, 15, 16). As Mey ass. 


30 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


It is wrong, therefore, to consider the Church to be the 
product of the Scriptures, because the Scriptures originated in 
the Church as the product of her active faith and life. The well 
known principles of the specific faith and life of the Christian 
Church constitute the content and spirit of the Scriptures. 
Both the Old and New Testament books were examined and 
adopted by the Church because they were considered to be the 
historical and didactical expression of the content of her relig- 
ious life. It is for this reason that the Church has made the 
Holy Scriptures her true source of divine knowledge and the 
normal rule of faith and life. Going back to the deepest appre- 
hension of the mystery of revelation the Church considers the 
Scriptures to be the work of the Holy Spirit and as the Word 
of God. But the central and most important point in Chris- 
tianity is the faith in Christ. 

From this fact has arisen the claim of the Church respecting 
the interpretation of Scripture. Self-preservation requires her 
not to admit any other interpretation than one which is anal- 
ogous to, or an analogy of, her original faith and peculiar 
Spirit, for the relation of the Church to the Scriptures is not 
like that of a mere human Society, which has no religious faith, 
but wants first to draw this from the Scriptures. In this case 
the interpretation might be entirely free and new to suit both 
the taste and the object. As the individual looks up to Christ 
for life and support, so all true Christians look also to the 
Scriptures, because they contain the faith in Christ in words. 
The Church has laid hold upon and adopted the Scriptures in 
order to be preserved, guided and corrected thereby, and hence 
she cannot tolerate any interpretation which is not made 
according to the essential analogy of her original faith. For 
this reason the Church has always been the guardian of Scrip- 
ture interpretation. She has laid down certain principles 
according to which the work is to be done, and these rules 
have been adopted among her dogmatical determinations, being 
considered to be of the same authority. The doctrinal defini- 
tions are more or less rooted in the faith and life of the Church, 
and must be in harmony with her traditional churchly feeling 
and consciousness. 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST 31 


The true sense of Church doctrines is to be learned from 
the Confessions, especially from the Confessions of the Re- 
formed and Lutheran Churches, and also from the expositions 
of orthodox theologians. These united authorities constitute 
the hermeneutical requirements laid down by the Church. Ac- 
cording to this norm it is to be determined what must be 
regarded as orthodox and what as heterodox. But the Lutheran 
symbols say very little on the subject of interpretation, while 
the Reformed symbols are full and explicit upon that theme. 
The Helvetic Confession says that the Scriptures must be 
regarded as the Word of God, and consequently the interpre- 
tation must be governed by the hermeneutical rule that God 
Himself is the Author. Again, only that interpretation of 
Scripture is to be acknowledged as orthodox and genuine which 
is made in harmony with Scripture itself, with the law of faith 
and charity, for the salvation of man and to the glory of God. 
These requirements of the Reformed symbols are based upon 
such passages of Scripture as II Peter 1:20, 21: ‘‘Knowing this 
first, that no prophecy of the Scriptures is of any private inter- 
pretation. For the prophecy came not in ancient time by the 
will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved 
by the Holy Ghost.’’ The prophetic books require an inter- 
pretation which not everyone is able to give. And the Scrip- 
tures in general do not admit of any kind of exposition. Only 
the Spirit that dwells in them is able to interpret them correctly. 
On this is based the hermeneutical principle that Scripture 
interprets Scripture, while all other means are only helps to 
this end. The more obscure and less frequent passages must 
be explained by the clearer and more numerous ones. The 
appropriate expression for this kind of interpretation is this: 
“Ex analogia Scripturae, Scriptura sancta sui ipsius interpres.” 
This stands in connection with the other, that the Holy Spirit 
is the author of the Scriptures, and is in direct opposition to 
Roman Catholic interpretation. 

When we say that Scripture is to be its own expounder 
we mean that one passage of the Bible must receive light from 
another, and one book from the other, according to general 
hermeneutical rules. But in using this most important method 


32 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


we must be very careful to avoid the false idea of inspiration 
which holds that the Holy Spirit used the human authors of the 
Bible simply as instruments through which He spoke in a 
mechanical way. One must also resist the impression that He 
spoke partly in and through them in the verbal sense, but at 
the same time also for Himself in a deeper sense, and yet also 
in their words. This monstrous idea of a double speaking 
would be forever irreconcilable with any real human psycho- 
logical and historical meditation on the origin of the Bible, and 
the Bible would thus become a perfect and an intolerable mira- 
cle and enigma. Allegorists may justify their theory by the 
assumption that the Word of God is unlimited in its content, 
which in the thousandfold occasions of the world’s history is 
not always brought to light by the verbal sense, and that this 
deep unlimited meaning was likewise intended by the Holy 
Spirit to be present in the Scriptures and is therefore also 
intended to be interpreted and confirmed. They have over- 
looked the difference between explication and application. 
Inasmuch as the Holy Scriptures are the norm and source of 
religious truth, the Holy Spirit has intended its interpretation 
to be made in the proper sense. But the Scriptures are also a 
means of Grace by which the religious life is to be directed and 
supported, and in this respect they are unlimited in their appli- 
cation. To this end the Holy Spirit operates also with the 
Word in various ways, and by means of it. And since the 
operation of the Spirit by the Word corresponds with the 
special Providence of God, leading men to the Word, and 
bringing the Word home to men, causing them to feel its power 
and importance, therefore the brilliant light of the divine Word 
may thus cast the most manifold rays of truth into the soul, 
which humanly considered, are accidentally connected with the 
Word, but divinely considered are also embraced in the power 
and object of the Spirit, who, in this respect, operates freely 
with the Word, created by Himself. 

But the very extensiveness and freedom of this application 
of the Word requires the interpretation to be the more strict, 
because by it the general standard and rule of truth are to be 
established from the Scriptures, which even the application in 
all its freedom dare not transcend. 


The Analogy of Faith 


HE ANALOGY of faith is another means for the right 
understanding of Scripture subjects. The analogy of 
faith is the internal similarity of Scripture doctrines, and 
very important when employed within proper limita- 

tions. To reason from analogy is correct enough when one 
wishes to arrive at the real meaning of a passage, but it must 
never overrule the grammatical and logical sense found by the 
use of the other means. Great satisfaction results from the 
successful employment of the analogy of faith. It confirms all 
the fundamental doctrines of Christianity beyond the possibility 
of doubt, and causes the mind to rejoice in the assurance of a 
saving faith. Hence the analogy of faith and of Christian doc- 
trine should always more or less guide the work of interpreta- 
tion, especially in phrases of doubtful meaning where the anal- 
ogy of Scripture sentiment alone can lead us to the proper 
sense. 

But it is now maintained by many that the Scriptures are to 
be explained according to the analogy of faith, but that since to 
the analogy of faith above all else the doctrine of justification 
through faith belongs, therefore Scripture is to be explained 
according to this teaching, and that this doctrine is to be sought 
and found everywhere. But the analogy of faith is either 
brought to the Scriptures from without, and therefore exeget- 
ically unjustifiable, or else it is the quintessence of its content 
drawn from Scripture itself, and then the principle is perfectly 
correct on the presupposition, namely, that it has really resulted 
from correct exegesis, and as the true quintessence. But this 
presupposition is untenable for the reason that such a quin- 
tessence can only be the highest result of exegesis, and is there- 
fore always to be tested anew by the latter. It stands to reason, 
therefore, that exegesis must be free from dogmatic presupposi- 
tion, and must in every particular case be guided by the con- 
nection. At first sight two or more passages may appear to be 


[ 33 ] 





34 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


perfectly analogous, but a critical examination of each passage 
by itself may cause all apparent analogy to vanish. 

In the application of parallel ideas the same precaution 
must be observed. Though it is an exegetical help of great 
value, yet if misunderstood or wrongly applied the analogy of 
faith may lead to dangerous conclusions. We cite as an 
example Matthew 5:25, 26, as compared with Luke 12:58, 59. 
Both Synoptics speak of the necessity of becoming reconciled, 
but by examination the context of each passage shows that they 
are not parallel at all. 


The document ends here rather abruptly. An interrup- 
tion evidently occurred in its preparation, and for some 
unknown reason it was never completed. Dr. Herman Rust, 
though thoroughly familiar with many of the crucial problems 
of textual, historical and speculative criticism, maintained a con- 
sistently conservative attitude toward every tendency which 
carried in its train the disturbing and destructive elements of 
doubt and infidelity. The latitudinarian speculations of the 
great Bible critics, especially in the latter half of the Nineteenth 
Century, men like DeWette, Ewald, Baur, Strauss, Kuenen, 
and others, did not appeal to him. He was afraid of such men 
and their writings. He regarded their scholarly individualistic 
freedom as a menace to the divinely revealed and sufficiently 
attested saving purpose of Christianity and the providential 
mission of the Church of Jesus Christ. He held that ministers 
and laymen who ally themselves with rationalistic trends ruin 
their own pastoral usefulness and do irreparable harm to the 
Church of God. 

And moreover, he believed firmly in educational Chris- 
tianity, namely, that the fundamental doctrines of our holy 
religion, as recorded in the New Testament and set forth in 
the Heidelberg Catechism, ought to be systematically, conscien- 
tiously and efficiently promulgated and perpetuated by means of 
catechetical instruction, through doctrinal inculcation in the 
Sunday School with the aid of the right kind of lesson helps, 
and by the agency of the highest expression of Christian home 
life. 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST 35 


Dr. Herman Rust did not fully endorse the grammatical 
method of Ernesti. He utilized Immer’s Hermeneutics as a 
text-book only as far as the views of that writer agree with 
traditional Bible Christianity. He constantly commended 
Vinet’s Pastoral Theology, and insisted that one can scarcely 
find any better work upon that important subject anywhere else. 

The Gospel Ministry in his view, on New Testament 
grounds, is an ambassadorship of Christ. The Minister is 
neither a priest in the Roman Catholic sense, nor a pastor in 
the strict Lutheran sense, but a cure of souls, a ‘‘Seelsorger,’’ 
one who is to win, to teach, to guide and to feed human souls 
under his care and within the circle of his influence, one who 
is responsible to God for the spiritual welfare of his people in 
obedience to the supreme example of Jesus: My sheep hear 
my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give 
unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither 
shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, who 
gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck 


them out of my Father’s hand. (St. John 10:27-30). 





NOTE.—In further elucidation of the difficult problem of the origin of 
the New Testament Canon, already alluded to on pages 27-29, and of the 
Synoptic Gospels particularly, the conclusions of Pastor George Stolsch 
(Eyewitnesses of the Life of Jesus, Berlin, 1895), shed a great deal of satis- 
fying light upon the subject. In the last analysis, he says, it is the testi- 
monium Spiritus sancti, the witness of the Holy Spirit, which decides 
between faith and unfaith, And yet we must not forget that when Jesus 
promised His disciples the gift of the Holy Ghost, He added the declara- 
tion: ‘‘And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from 
the beginning.”" (St. John 15:27). 

The Gospel of Mark was written through the agency of Peter, who 
entered the circle of the chosen twelve after the childhood period of Jesus, 
which lay beyond the border line of his personal experience. For this rea- 
son St. Mark begins his Gospel with the ministry of John the Baptist. St. 
Peter kept silent concerning the events that preceded the appearance of the 
great forerunner of Christ. This explains the absence of the genealogy of 
Jesus from the Gospel of St. Mark. 

The Apostle James, who remained in Jerusalem and knew the family 
history of Jesus, gave original source material to St. Matthew, the writer 
of the Gospel which bears his name. If it is true that the Gospel of Mark 
antedates the Gospel of Matthew, on traditional grounds, and because so 


36 : THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


much of the text of Mark reappears almost word for word in Matthew's 
Gospel, the significant fact impresses one profoundly to find that the ‘*Peter 
“Rock passage’’ (Matthew 16:17, 18, 19) does not occur in the Gospel of 
Mark. If Peter had ever, in his own person, received the ‘‘Power of the 
Keys,"’ he certainly would have made his commission known to Mark! 

As the Gospel of Mark is the Petrine Gospel, so the Gospel of St. 
Luke is the Pauline Gospel. The universal tradition of the Ancient Church 
testifies that St. Paul authorized and moved St. Luke to write the Gospel 
which bears his name. A careful scrutiny of important passages in Luke's 
Gospel shows conclusively that their content could have come from no other 
person than St. Paul, who, though ‘‘born out of due time,’’ must have seen 
and known Jesus in Jerusalem. 

St. John wrote the Gospel of John. He wrote it near the close of 
his life, to place upon record events and experiences in his association with 
Jesus, which are not presented in the setting, or are not mentioned at all, 
in the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark and St. Luke. The Apostles 
James, Peter and Paul, standing unheralded in the background, sought 
through Matthew, Mark and Luke to give an authentic and authoritative 
account of the Life of Jesus, as free as possible from the coloring and gloss 
of their own individuality. The Gospel of St. John, filled with fervor and 
adoration, intones the chord of personal testimony: ‘‘And the Word was 
made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of 
the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."’ 

Including the writers of the Apostolic Epistles, these are the witnesses 
whom Jesus meant when He announced to His immediate disciples that 
they also would bear testimony concerning Him and His mission. 


J. B. R. 


Hermeneutics 
N A GENERAL sense we understand by Hermeneutics 


the theory of interpretation, or the systematic confirma- 
tion of the general laws and principles according to 
which the written sense of a document is discovered in 
word or sentence. Interpretation is the art or skill to discover 
the meaning of an author and explain it. If the Bible were 
regarded simply as a written document of antiquity like other 
books, or as a part only of the general religious literature, con- 
sidered alike or similar, a Biblical Hermeneutic as a special sci- 
entific branch of study would hardly be necessary, as in this case 
Hermeneutics could be applied to it. But to the Christian the 
Bible is a record of Divine Revelation, the only proper source 
of eternal and absolutely reliable Truth, for which reason it is 
also the ultimate rule of faith and life, the source of real comfort 
and spiritual enjoyment for time and eternity. That this char- 
acter of the Bible and its elevated position require an essential 
modification of the laws of general Hermeneutics is at once 
apparent. But on account of its high position and general char- 
acter it has been agreed by many that the Bible must be capable 
of interpretation without any scientific rules, not only by the 
learned, but also by the unlearned, being alike intended for all. 
At first sight this opinion seems plausible, for it has never been 
successfully denied that every Christian is able to understand 
the Bible as far as this is necessary for his own soul’s salvation. 

It is upon this presumption that Protestantism has given, 
and is giving, the Bible into the hands of allits members. This 
Christian liberality in the distribution of God’s Word has, 
however, been carried to an extreme by fanatics, such as the 
Quakers and others, who have come to the false conclusion, 
and maintain it obstinately, that a learned exposition of Scrip- 
ture is altogether superfluous. This fanatical extreme has 
called forth much opposition, not only from Catholic writers, 
but also from many learned Protestant theologians of different 
denominations, some of whom have reached the conclusion that 


[ 37 ] 





38 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


the Bible should only be placed into the hands of persons who 
are able to interpret it aright, and that its free distribution 
among the people should always be accompanied with proper 
instruction on the part of able orthodox men. In this way 
they believe it to be possible to prevent the abuse of the Bible 
and to save the Church from sectarian divisions. But this lim- 
itation of the use of the Bible, if consistently carried out, would 
finally bring us to the position of Popery, which confined the 
use of the Bible altogether to its own able and faithful adherents. 
As Christ Himself, 30 also is His Holy Word for all the 
veople, and the Church has no right to deny anyone the priv- 
ilege of its use. Had the Church always used the Scriptures 
properly they would not have been abused so much, nor would 
the free use of the Bible have resulted in so many heresies and 
sects. 

Those who hold that a learned interpretation of the Bible 
is unnecessary forget or ignore the fact that without scientific 
exposition such as is employed in translation, they themselves 
would never have come into possession of the Bible, for the 
learned understanding and interpretation of its meaning gave 
the Bible to them as well as to all of us. 

The Bible is a record of ancient times, prepared in a lan- 
guage now dead, under national circumstances and local rela- 
tions vastly different from our own. It was written by authors 
for readers whose moral and spiritual condition and views could 
hardly in any sense be compared with our surroundings and 
conceptions. It follows, therefore, that only through a learned 
interpretation can the real sense of those writings be properly 
expounded. If the works of modern authors like Goethe and 
Shakespeare, or even Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s 
Cabin, require commentaries for their correct apprehension, 
and if plain expository sermons are often not understood by 
the common people, how would it be possible to obtain the real 
meaning of Bible records without the assistance of scientific 
rules? But because the Bible is divinely inspired, and there- 
fore a holy book, a merely scientific interpretation cannot 
elucidate its proper meaning. This is plainly shown by the 
perverted interpretations of Rationalistic theologians such as 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST 33 


Germany produced during the last (the Nineteenth) Cen- 
tury. They possessed indeed the requisite historical, grammat- 
ical and philological ability in the highest degree, but their mode 
of thinking wag void of the necessary element of religion. They 
had no sympathy with the living Church of God, in which and 
for which the Word of God has been given, and hence their 
interpretation must necessarily be false. 

The works of Rationalism, of that system which makes our 
rational power the ultimate test of truth, teach us that we can- 
not understand the Scriptures per se, but must also give heed 
to the Church, for in it the life and spirit of the holy men of 
God, the authors of the Bible, are perpetuated. The Scriptures 
can be the rule and norm of faith only when understood and 
properly esteemed in the sense of the Church, for it is only in: 
this way that they are considered of binding authority. But a 
vigorous use of the Bible always has the tendency to liberate 
the mind from a slavish Scholasticism, as it did in the Reforma- 
tion period, and also in the last century, though the interpreters 
of the latter age were negative in their work, principally endeav- 
oring to tear down all that the Church had formerly established. 
Nevertheless this negative, rationalistic tendency called forth 
an energetic, sound and positive tendency, which has since then 
accomplished wonders in the expounding of Holy Writ. 

The difficulties connected with the interpretation of the 
Bible are, first, the antiquity and oriental character of the writ- 
ings that compose it, as has been hinted above. The sacred 
writers are very remote from us, in a civil, moral and religious 
sense. To appreciate their writings we must be able to under- 
stand them in their distant position and surroundings. We 
must therefore, transfer ourselves in thought back to the time, 
and place ourselves into the circumstances, in which those men 
lived and moved. To pass judgment upon their writings from 
our own standpoint must necessarily lead to misunderstandings. 
We must be able in imagination to enter their position in order 
that we may see and feel as they saw and felt. They were 
Orientals, and hence we must acquire a knowledge of their 
language, else we can never understand the meaning of their 
words. 


40 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


Again, in the second place, we must also be familiar with 
history, since in one sense the Bible is an historical production, 
and all the facts recorded in it are surrounded by great historical 
developments. It is for this reason that Hermeneutics is con~ 
sidered to be a branch of Historical Theology, because its prov- 
ince is to set forth the historical beginning and foundation of 
Biblical religion and its further development in the history of 
the world. 

There is a conception of Inspiration according to which 
the Scriptures are altogether divine, not in the least conditioned 
by human agency. If this view were correct the interpretion 
of the Bible would be an easy task indeed. But it naturally lies 
in the conception of Inspiration that the latter must partake of, 
must be colored by, the mind through which it passes, for the 
mind of a Prophet moves with as much freedom as does the 
mind of any profane writer. We have no reason, therefore, 
to think that an uninspired book can be understood unless the 
reader transports himself into its action and atmosphere and 
apprehends the author's mode of reasoning. A great difference 
exists between Greek and Jewish writers even among the 
Apostles. 

But this external natural difficulty is far less pronounced 
than the internal moral difficulty, which consists in this, that all 
men by nature are devoid of sympathy with divine truth and 
unable, therefore, to realize and expound its meaning. Just as 
Homer’s Iliad, or any other great poetical work, can be fully 
appreciated only by a poetical mind, so also great religious 
works, written by spiritually minded men, can be apprehended 
only by means of competent spiritual qualification, especially in 
relation to the Bible. Hence we have a perfect right to main- 
tain that men like Voltaire, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, 
and the Rationalists of Germany, are morally disqualified to 
understand and interpret the Scriptures. The spiritual sense 
of the Bible can be apprehended only by earnest spiritual minds. 
There must be a living sympathy with the Scriptures, on the 
one hand, and, on the other, with the Church of God, within 
whose pale, for whose edification and perpetuity the Scriptures 
were written. Without regard for the Church and her under- 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST 4] 


standing of the Bible our own interpretation must needs be 
singular and one-sided, which is abundantly proved by the false 
sectarian expositions of so many fanatics in our day. We must 
admit, in a proper measure, the authority of the Church, in 
which the spirit of the Bible dwells, and our minds must be in 
sympathy with her life and interests in order that the real mean- 
ing of Divine Truth may be apprehended. 

Schleiermacher regards Hermeneutics as the skill of under- 
standing the sense of a written document, without including 
also the exposition of that that has been understood. This is, 
however, not a full view of the subject. The Bible has evi- 
dently been given to mankind for the purpose of being under- 
stood by everyone, but since all are not scientifically qualified 
to reach this understanding, the Art of Interpretation must also 
include the work of setting forth and explaining the discovered 
meaning of the contents. Hence Hermeneutics must also lay 
down and establish the general principles of this exposition. 
Therefore it is necessary for an interpreter to possess a keen 
power of discernment to apprehend the content of Holy Scrip- 
ture, and he must also have the skill to explain it to others. It 
is not easy to know even whether we understand a passage of 
the Bible or not, for many imagine they do, while in reality 
they are grossly mistaken. Some confine themselves to an 
interpretation of the subject matter without regard to the form 
in which it appears, while others are satisfied with an interpre- 
tation of the word or language without proper respect for the 
subject matter. Both of them must necessarily fall short of the 
real meaning, because the content is the cause of the form. 
Thought and Word constitute a living union like soul and body, 
so that the one cannot be understood without the other. It is 
precisely this interpretation of content and word which should 
engage the skill of the interpreter, in order that the complete 
sense of the author may be obtained. ‘‘What is given must be 
interpreted as it has been given,’’ in connection with, and out 
of, the living active causes which called it forth, for every writer 
has been determined by internal and external reasons to perform 
his duty in the particular manner laid down. Hence we can 
only fully understand him in connection with those determining 
causes and circumstances. 


42 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


Interpretation consists in the first place in the discovery or 
mediation of the sense of any word singly considered. But 
the single word or passage is always only a member of a whole 
textual body, a part of a particular writing or book, and of all 
the books belonging together, as in the Bible. To understand 
a single passage, therefore, it must be considered as a part of 
the whole in which it lives, and it must be explained by the 
united Spirit and form of the Bible. Archaeology, Biblical 
Theology, Introduction to the Scriptures, and even Dogmatics 
may confine themselves to single passages to conform with their 
standpoint. But Hermeneutics must comprehend the whole 
field to which these special branches are devoted, and proceed 
from the general to the particular, while Exegesis and other 
sciences proceed from the particular to the general. 

It is the object of interpretation rightly to understand the 
gense expressed in the words, and fully to apprehend the his- 
torical reality. For this reason philological equipment and 
ability are indispensable. Only a truly philological interpreta- 
tion can properly explain the formal, or bodily, side of Scrip- 
ture according to the general laws of Grammar and Rhetoric. 
A word is primarily a thought which externalizes itself in sound, 
and hence there is a great difference between word and sound, 
though the word may be called a peculiar or significant sound. 
But since a word is the externalization of a thought, every word 
must have a meaning, for a word without meaning would in 
reality not be a word at all. The literal meaning of a word is 
the immediate sense which it suggests, but which is not always 
the primary sense, for many words have lost their original sense 
and now express a quite different meaning, as, for instance, the 
word So0Xos, or slave. 

A word has two senses, the external and the internal, or 
the sound and the meaning. But they are intimately connected 
together, and this connection between sound and sense is not 
arbitrary or mechanical. It is internal and natural. Ernesti 
and other writers on the subject have represented the relation 
between sound and sense to be accidental, or the result of a 
mere agreement among men. But this notion is false, for if a 
word could be considered to be accidental in the connection 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST 43 


that exists between its sound and its sense, then the whole 
language would fall into the same category. The difference in 
language, in some instances very great and in others quite small, 
is by no means accidental, but grown out from the nature of a 
country and the character of a people. Nevertheless all lan- 
guages, just as do all peoples, spring from the same stock. 
There are families of languages, as, for example, the Semitic, 
the Germanic, the Slavonic, and so on, which proves the 
organic nature of language. At the same time every family of 
languages and every single language has its own laws and is 
governed by them. The human mind, the living and produc- 
tive source of thought, may be considered to be the soul of 
language, and language may be regarded as being the most beau- 
tiful embodiment of the mind. But since the mind is a living 
organ, its production and manifestations must be organic. 
Consequently every word stands organically related to the form 
in which it appears. For this reason we must understand the 
life of a nation in order to understand their language. A for- 
eigner in this country will never become proficient in the use 
of the English language unless he imbibes the spirit and life of 
the American people and takes an active part in their interests. 
And this is true of every other living language, whereas on the 
other hand it is far more difficult to understand a dead language. 
Though the words of two different languages may often seem to 
be similar, or even alike, yet the sense is not always the same. 
This is one cause of the impossibility of making an absolutely 
literal translation of a document from one language into another. 

A degree of connection exists between the sense of words 
and their letters. Some letters will naturally enter into certain 
kinds of words, as in Hebrew, where all the words of the lan- 
guage may be traced to three kinds of roots. Yet it would be 
absurd to suppose that the Hebrew language could be inter- 
preted by the mere form of its letters. It is the usus loquendi 
alone that can give us the proper meaning. As the people 
themselves understood their language, so we must understand 
it, for after the relation of words and their sense has once 
become established by usage, it is reliably fixed and we cannot 
change it, even if we should not like the sense of some word or 


44 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


words. The connection cannot be broken by choice, nor has 
anyone a right to give an arbitrary meaning to a word, no 
matter how important the considerations may be which make a 
change desirable. It is also to be remembered that a word can 
have only one sense in the same sentence, for if it could have 
two or more meanings there would be no established meaning 
at all and we would run into endless confusion. On the other 
hand it is admitted that words sometimes have different mean- 
ings in different sentences and connections. In this case it 
becomes necessary to examine the context and design in order 
to discover the real meaning of the words and the ultimate pur- 
pose of the sacred writers toward which all their inspired pro- 
ductions look, and for which they are given to the world: faith 
in Jesus Christ, the Son of God. This is the central object of 
Divine Revelation and the cardinal point in which all the books 
of Holy Scripture agree. By keeping this fact in view the con- 
text will always enable us to find the real meaning of singular 
expressions or words. 


There has been at all times a tendency to attribute different 
meanings to words. Origen claimed a threefold sense in Scrip- 
ture: First, a literal (historical) sense; Second, a spiritual and 
mystical sense (for the Church); Third, a moral sense (respect- 
ing the soul of every Christian). This method of interpretation 
was imitated and followed during the Middle Ages, up to the 
Twelfth Century. 


Others claimed to find a fourfold meaning in Scripture: 
First, the historical; Second, the allegorical; Third, a tropical 
or figurative sense, and Fourth, an anagogical, mystical or spirit- 
elevating sense. Still others maintained the practice, in accord- 
ance with their opinion, of finding a seven and eightfold mean- 
ing in Scripture, as did for example Angilram, a monk.* To 


* This allusion to Angilram in connection with the science of Herme- 
neutics is somewhat vague, apparently so, because Angilram, abbot of the 
monastery of Senones and Bishop of Metz (768-791), if this is the man 
meant by the author, owes his place in history in the main to the unac- 
countable entanglement of his name with the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals. 

— Editor. 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST 45 


this method belonged: First, the historical; Second, the alle- 
gorical; Third, a sense between the two (?); Fourth, a trop- 
ical sense (relative to the Trinity); Fifth, a parabolical sense; 
Sixth, a sense relating to the double appearance of Christ, and 
Seventh, a moral sense. The threefold sense was itself often 
interpreted mystically, as for instance by St. Bernard in his 
Ninety-second sermon, which is divided in the following man- 
ner: The Bridegroom Leads the Bride, First, Into the garden 
(Historical sense); Second, Into the Spice fruit and wine cellar 
(the moral sense); Third, Into the cubiculum, the sleeping 
room (mystical sense). 


This dangerous treatment of the Sacred Scriptures received 
a check only in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries, when 
Popes and Church Councils forbade its further practice. The 
extravagance and abuse resulting from the ancient habit of 
ascribing different meanings to words, in later times called forth 
another tendency which excludes all senses save one, namely, 
the grammatical sense. This procedure would be correct if the 
Bible were merely a human production, for according to the 
laws of Hermeneutics in general, we can only find in a word 
the meaning the author has associated with it. Ina particular 
word he can have expressed only one particular thought, for it 
is certain that, in speaking, a man always says only one thing, 
which is at the time the subject of his thoughts. And inasmuch 
as the Bible speaks to human beings in human language, it can- 
not be exempted from this general rule according to which a 
passage can have only one original particular sense that flows 
directly from the words, called: sensus literalis, also verbalis, 
etymologicus. But this does not say that the words must always 
be taken in their proper sense. It may often be necessary to 
modify their meaning, when the connection shows that the 
author has something different in mind, sometimes the opposite 
of what at first sight appears to be expressed by the words. 
The following passage may be cited as an example: ‘And the 
Lord God said, Behold the man (Adam) is become as one of 
us.’’ (Genesis 3:22). Here the real import of this ironical 
expression is the reverse of the meaning it seems to convey. 


46 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


The very tendency, which has been in existence for so long a 
time, to give different meanings to words, shows that the prob- 
ability of different senses exists. But while it must be conceded 
that the same word may have a different meaning in different 
passages, and while a passage may have a twofold meaning, yet 
the single word can have only one sense. The literal, histor- 
ical, moral, doctrinal and other kinds of meanings, which some 
take separately, are so united that in fact they constitute only 
one sense, and this natural union of senses must not be dis- 
turbed lest we fall into endless confusion. The union of the 
primary and secondary meanings is not merely external and 
mechanical, but organic and real. The reason is that every 
author stands in a general system of thought, which naturally 
enters more or less into his individual writings, even contrary 
to his intention, so that he actually becomes the medium of 
expression both for the particular subject and the general system 
of thought by which he is surrounded. 


The Book of Proverbs seems to have a double meaning 
throughout. It refers first to the political, and then also to the 
moral condition of the world. And not only this book, but 
the Old Testament as a whole, has a twofold sense, having ref- 
erence primarily to the People of Israel, and in the second place 
to the New Testament Dispensation. Asan example we may 
take the words: ‘‘Out of Egypt have I called my son,” (Mat- 
thew 2:15), the primary sense of which is evidently applied to 
the Jewish nation, but another, deeper sense, respecting Christ, 
is also implied. 

Persons of a spiritualistic tendency, who regard the Holy 
Spirit not only as the principal, but almost as the sole author of 
the Scriptures, and who for this reason attribute infinite riches 
to the contents of the Bible, have, consequently, not been sat~- 
isfied with the direct and indirect senses referred to above. 
Hence they consider it to be their right and duty to find one or 
more deeper meanings in the Sacred Scriptures, of which the 
human authors of the writings were not always conscious, and 
which were incorporated in the words by the Holy Spirit. This 
manner of interpreting the Bible is commonly called the Alle- 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST AT 


gorical. This method proceeds upon the supposition that some- 
thing different from what is said, is meant, and that hence the 
words are to be taken as a figurative signification of thoughts, 
or that they must be understood to contain one sense, and per- 
haps several other meanings, besides the verbal signification. 
Thus Schwedenborg gave to some words in a sentence a literal, 
and to others an allegorical meaning, a proceeding which must 
be considered to be groundless and false. 


The motive which prompted the allegorical interpretation 
was not always bad, for it was in many instances based upon a 
profound veneration for the Bible as the work of God’s Holy 
Spirit, and manifested an earnest desire to unfold the deep 
mines of its unsearchable riches. But in most cases the alle- 
gorical interpretation is resorted to to establish and support 
some particular standpoint, system, or religious theory. In 
view of this abuse of Holy Scripture, Protestant theologians 
early laid down the rule that every passage can have only one 
original and particular sense, namely, the verbal sense, which 
of course excludes all allegorical interpretation. At the same 
time they did not thereby deny that the verbal sense of Bible 
passages may refer to something higher and broader. But they 
declined to regard this extended meaning as another particular 
meaning besides the original sense of the word intended by the 
Holy Spirit, and to be interpreted as such, but only as an appli- 
cation of the verbal sense. This rule was based upon the pre- 
sumption that a writer at the time of composition can have only 
one definite subject in his thoughts, and that this is the only 
thing he can express in his words. But the friends of the Alle- 
gory have opposed this claim by saying that every intimation is 
a second meaning, and whoever does not apprehend this and 
include it in his interpretation cannot fully expound the connec- 
tion and import of the contents. This is perfectly correct, 
because it is natural for subordinate conceptions to become 
interwoven with the principal train of thought. This, however, 
does not prove the existence of a plurality of senses claimed by 
the Allegorists, for the secondary conception was not intended 
to serve as a particular meaning, but came in rather by acci- 


48 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


dent, and therefore cannot be regarded as being a second mean~ 
ing. That the particular idea expressed in the word or sentence 
may at the same time include a general idea as its ultimate end 
has been conceded above. But this general idea expressed in, 
and with, the individual or particular subject, is not necessarily 
a product of conscious deliberation, for we know that in cases 
of the most sublime human production the speaking and writing 
are instinctive and inspirational rather than the result of con- 
scious calculation, so much so, indeed, that authors themselves 
are often unable to see the distant bearing of the great thoughts 
set forth in their own works. Though we must never consider 
the authors of the Bible as mere machines of the governing 
Holy Spirit, nevertheless it is evident that their individual con- 
sciousness was transcended by far by the Divine Truth revealed 
by them. Many apprehended only one side of the truth, while 
their words in which this truth is particularly expressed, point 
us toward and unveil to us an unlimited depth and distance, and 
hence admit of more than one application. However this view 
of the Biblical authors does not require an allegorical interpre- 
tation, but refers especially to what is called the typical expla- 
nation of the Bible. 


An allegory is an imaginary representation of facts and 
therefore stands closely related to the typical interpretation. 
For this reason we must exercise great caution lest we force 
meanings into the Scriptures which they will not bear. The 
great error and confusion which result from allegorizing com- 
mence properly when the typical interpretation does not pro- 
ceed from the connection present in Scripture itself, nor from 
its clearly expressed fundamental idea. It is wrong, therefore, 
to set forth from any system of thought not founded upon Holy 
Scripture, or which goes beyond the Scriptures. And further- 
more the deeper lying references to general subjects must only 
be sought where Scripture itself requires us to seek them. For 
while the position of certain Old Testament institutions, per- 
sons and passages is such that their fulfillment can be found 
only in the New Testament, the position and significance of 
others evidently confine them to the time and circumstances in 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST 49 


which they originated. It lies in the nature of types, moreover, 
that the further-reaching references can have only a general 
representative character, can apply only to certain general fun- 
damentals, which are held together by the organic bond of a 
common idea and certified or proved thereby. The more 
atomistic, or isolated, the references show themselves to be, 
the more certainly are they false. The real fallacy of Allegory 
consists in this, that it seeks the deeper references not in the 
things, but in the words, and that consequently it considers 
these references or applications to be so many different senses 
imbedded in the words. But language is not typical. Only 
things are typical, and hence it is a lamentable mistake when 
any person tries to draw from the language what the things 
alone contain. The Allegorical interpretation in general is 
arbitrary, though in some instances very ingenious, in most 
cases it is an insipid playing with words. However the Alle- 
gorical interpretation is not only condemned by its arbitrary 
proceeding, but also by the fatal consequences which result from 
it respecting the significance of the Bible as a record of Revela- 
tion. Subordinating, as it does, the grammatico-historical sense 
to the higher, more general meaning, all certainty of the true 
understanding of the Bible vanishes, and thus the real object of 
Revelation is frustrated. 


The Principles of Interpretation 


proper and prevalent regard and their general use in 

public worship occurred only toward the close of the 

Second Century, after the animated controversies with 
various heretics, especially the Ebionites, the Nazarenes, the 
Elcesaites, and other early Gnostic sects. Hence it is evident 
that the faith and life of the Church had been in active existence 
a long time before all the New Testament writings were consid- 
ered as of specially divine origin and authority in the same 
measure as was the Old Testament Canon. 

It has been held and asserted by many that at the time of 
the great Reformation of the Sixteenth Century the then pre- 
vailing faith was the product of the Holy Scriptures. This 
view, plausible as it appears, is however not correct, because 
faith in the Scriptures, though greatly obscured before the 
Reformation, had never been entirely lost. But the real knowl- 
edge and internal consciousness of divine and holy things in 
the Church had been rendered indistinct and uncertain by 
unscriptural doctrines and irrational practices, so that the Re- 
formers, awakened and enlightened by the Holy Spirit, seeing 
the mighty changes that had taken place in every department of 
activity, together with the consequent obscurity and uncer- 
tainty, searched the Holy Scriptures and found that they alone 
had remained unchanged. For this reason the prevailing desire 
to return to fundamentals could be satisfied by nothing else 
than the Scriptures, and this gave them the position of pre- 
eminence which they possess in Protestant households from 
that day to the present time. 

All true Christian faith does not depend primarily upon 
the Scriptures, but upon the Person of the Saviour and on the 
impression which He makes upon the individual. So it was 
with the Apostles. The impressions of the Saviour upon their 


[ 50 J 


HE ELEVATION of the writings of the Apostles into 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST 51 


minds and hearts were first manifested and proclaimed by them 
in sermon and conversation, and afterwards preserved and 
exhibited in the New Testament. For this reason whoever 
feels the power of these impressions, as it was felt by the 
Apostles, will at once begin to trust confidently in the Scrip- 
tures, and will plainly see and acknowledge in them, the oper- 
ation of the Holy Spirit. 

In view of these historical facts it must be evident to every 
one that it is wrong to regard the Church as the product of the 
Scriptures simply because they had their origin in the Church, 
and were to a great extent the product of her living faith and 
active life. The well-known principles of the specific faith and 
life of the Christian Church constitute the content and spirit of 
the Scriptures. Both the Old and New Testament writings 
were adopted by the Church because she considered them to be 
the historical and didactic expression of the principles and con- 
tent of her religious faith and life. It is for this reason that 
they have been, and ever will be, the constant and only valid 
source of divine knowledge and normal rule. Going back to 
the deepest apprehension, the Church considers the Scriptures 
to be the work of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God. But 
though this high regard for the Scriptures is altogether right and 
proper, yet the faith in Christ as the center and object of both 
Covenants, must ever be held to be the primary and most 
important fact in Christianity. It was the Personal, Living 
Christ who by His Word and Spirit changed Peter and Paul 
and John, and all His other disciples, into new creatures. He 
drew them to Himself by the Word and Spirit which proceeded 
from Him. 

From this fact, then, arises the claim of the Church con- 
cerning the interpretation of the Scriptures. The inherent law 
of self-preservation requires her to guard against and reject any 
other interpretation than one that isin harmony with her orig- 
inal faith and peculiar Spirit. For it must be remembered that 
the relation of the Church to the Scriptures is not like that of a 
mere human society which has nothing to do with religious 
faith. Such a society may go to the Scriptures for the purpose 
of discovering or inventing some kind of a faith for its own 


52 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


purpose. In this case the interpretation may be entirely free 
and altogether novel to suit the taste of the association and the 
object they wish to reach. But the Church, being already in 
possession of her own peculiar faith, can have no such inten- 
tion in the interpretation of Scripture, and neither can the 
Church tolerate any interpretation that comes into direct con- 
flict with her saving faith. As the individual Christian looks 
up to Christ for life and support, because without Him he can 
do nothing, so all true Christians find it necessary to look into, 
and to search the Holy Scriptures, because they contain and 
mirror forth, in the purest manner, the faith in Christ, and the 
faithfulness of Christ to his followers. The Church has adopted 
and canonized these Scriptures for no other purpose than to be 
preserved, guided and protected thereby. And it is therefore 
quite natural that she cannot tolerate any interpretation of this 
sacred canon which runs counter to the essential analogy of 
her original faith. 

For this reason the Church has always claimed to be the 
only proper guardian of Scripture interpretation. She has laid 
down certain principles according to which the work is to be 
done, and these principles have been adopted among her dog- 
matical determinations, being considered of like importance and 
authority. The doctrinal definitions are rooted, more or less, 
in the faith and life of the Church, and must therefore be in 
harmony with her traditional churchly feeling. And _ this 
churchly feeling or consciousness has again to be guarded and 
directed by the doctrinal statement. 

In order to obtain the true import of church doctrines we 
must apply ourselves to the different confessions, especially to 
those of the Reformed and Lutheran Churches, and also to 
reliable orthodox expositions of these Confessions. As these 
Confessions are essentially in perfect harmony with all the most 
important Confessions of Primitive Christianity, and since faith- 
ful theologians have expounded them in the spirit of the Gospel, 
we therefore hold that these united authorities constitute the 
hermeneutical requirements laid down by the Church. By the 
light of these authorities we are to determine what is to be 
regarded as orthodoxy, and what as heterodoxy. 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST b3 


The Lutheran symbols, however, say very little on the 
subject of interpretation; but the Reformed confessions give 
us full and explicit information. The Helvetic Confession 
declares that the Scriptures must be regarded as the Word of 
God. This, therefore, is the hermeneutical presupposition, that 
God Himself is the prime Author of the Bible, and we inter- 
pret it in accordance with this presupposition. Again it says: 
‘Only that interpretation of Scripture is to be acknowledged as 
orthodox and reliable which is made in harmony with Scripture 
itself, in keeping with the rule of faith and love (charity), to the 
glory of God and for the salvation of man.’’ These hermeneu- 
tical requirements of the Reformed symbols are based upon 
such passages as II Peter 1:20, 21: ““Knowing this first, that no 
prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. 
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: 
but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy 
Ghost.’’ 

It may be proper to remark here that the Prophetic books 
require most careful interpretation, such as not everyone is 
able to give. And the Scriptures in general do not admit of 
any and every kind of exposition. They are full of a deep 
spiritual element, and the spirit that dwells in them must inter- 
pret itself. This fact has led to the conclusion that, while the 
knowledge of language, connection, author, history, parallel 
passages, and so on, is necessary, as a source of help, it after 
all remains true that Scripture must interpret itself. It is not 
merely according to the language, but according to the spirit of 
the language that the Scriptures have to be expounded. Every 
single passage is to be considered in its connection. The suc- 
cession of sentences and periods, as well as the different parts 
of the context, must be properly accounted for. The obscure 
and less frequent passages have to be explained by the clearer 
and more numerous ones. For this kind of interpretation the 
best expression is: *“Ex analogia Scripturae, Scriptura sancta 
sui ipsius interpres.’’ This stands in close connection with 
the other presupposition, namely, that the Holy Spirit is the 
Author of the Scriptures. This method of interpretation stands 
in direct opposition to that of the Catholics, who hold that 


54 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


their Church alone can give the proper interpretation of Holy 
Scripture, and not the Scriptures themselves. 


When we say that Scripture is to be its own interpreter, 
we mean that one passage of the Bible must receive light from 
another, and one book from another, according to general her- 
meneutical rules. There is something very peculiar in this, 
because the Scriptures are looked upon as the Word of God. 
The rule of the Church, therefore, can mean nothing more than 
this, namely, that wherever we find an idea or sentiment clearly 
set forth, this is to be taken as normal evidence for other pas- 
sages in which the same subject is treated. If for example the 
subject of the forgiveness of sin by faith in Christ is presented 
in the New Testament, we must be able to find it also in the 
Old Testament. Otherwise our supposition of the complete 
union of Scripture would be lost. The essential result must 
necessarily harmonize because the Scriptures are the Word of 
God, and therefore cannot contradict themselves. 


Besides the analogy of Scripture we have also to observe the 
analogy of faith, and carry out the process of interpretation ac- 
cordingly. This general Christian faith has been drawn from the 
clear and evident teaching of Scripture, since it stands forth strik- 
ingly in all its prominent parts, and thus forces itself upon every 
candid mind. It is called the ruling faith because we find it as a 
reigning principle in the Primitive Church, and all through her 
history. Originally it constituted the substance of the simple 
confession made by the subjects of baptism. It was a clear and 
sharp outline of all sure and necessary doctrines of faith, the 
sum and substance of all the most evident passages of Scripture, 
a proper and safe expression of faith in a number of definite 
articles. This was subsequently called the Apostles’ Creed, 
and retains this name at the present day. But there were also 
other rules of faith, drawn directly from the Holy Scriptures, 
according to which the interpretation was made. The great 
church Father Saint Augustine wanted to have all Scripture 
interpreted in accordance with the regula fidei et charitatis 
(the rule of faith and love), or: to the honor of God and for 
the salvation of man. This is certainly a very good rule to 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST 55 


follow, and if faithfully applied must produce the most desirable 
results. 

In the Augsburg Confession a similar rule is laid down, 
according to which the interpretation shall be made in harmony 
with the norm which is firmly founded on the Scriptures, 
namely, such a rule as is obtained from a complex of plain Bib- 
lical passages. This criterion, however, is insufficient because 
it leads too far in the direction of individual liberty, and must 
in the end produce a rationalistic interpretation, such as has 
troubled the Church throughout her history to a fearful extent. 
All reliability and safety must vanish where the interpreter is 
at liberty to deduce his own criterion from a complex of Scrip- 
ture passages merely, because this rule will always be in har- 
mony with his own spirit and preconceived notions, or it will 
be formed according to the object which he desires to reach. 
Not only Scripture, but also symbolical authority, must guide 
the interpreter in his work. In his Institutes, I, 7, 8, Calvin 
gives excellent instruction concerning symbolical authority. 
Speaking of the evidence of Scripture, he says: ‘‘But how shall 
we be persuaded to accept the divine original? This is just as 
if one would ask, how shall we learn to distinguish light from 
darkness, white from black, sweet from bitter? The Scriptures 
exhibit as clear an evidence of their truth as do white and black 
things of their color.”’ 

The real meaning of the doctrine of the Church respecting 
interpretation may be defined in this way: In expounding 
Scripture we must act upon the presumption that the contents 
are intended for, and directed to, the introduction of man into 
communion with God, and thus to Eternal Life, by means of a 
living and life producing knowledge, and that it is the Spirit of 
God who to this end speaks and operates in, and through, the 
Scriptures. For it is the very nature and object of the Holy 
Spirit to restore in man the lost image of God and communion 
with Him, and thus to cause man to live in eternal bliss. And 
the Saviour says: ‘‘This is life eternal, that they might know 
thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast 
sent.’” (St. John 17:3). 

This presupposition, that the contents of Scripture have 


56 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


this nature and tendency, is purely spiritual, the product of a 
living, experimental faith. An earnest desire to find the con- 
tents of Scripture to be of such a nature and tendency, must 
animate the interpreter, otherwise he cannot possibly present 
the real truth to others. It is a well known fact that under the 
influence of this desire many dark and difficult passages have 
been properly apprehended by uncultivated, but truly pious 
people, and much better than by some learned Doctors of 
Divinity. Simple minded farmers and warm hearted mechanics 
are often better able to tell us what the Lord means, than are 
some professors of Theology. 

It is not an arbitrary injunction, but a perfectly natural 
right, which causes the Church to lay down the above presup- 
position, and to require its observance in the interpretation of 
Holy Scripture, because the Bible is actually the book of her 
Spirit. The same Spirit that enlightened and animated her 
from the beginning, was the efficient cause also of the produc- 
tion and settlement of her sacred books. Hence there can be 
no essential difference between the Scriptures and the faith and 
life of the Church, though there may at times occur vast and 
long divisions in their relations, resulting from the misappre- 
hension of their divinely ordered mutual interrelation and 
dependence. All true members of the Church are conscious 
of the fact that there is, and must be, union and harmony 
between the Spirit of Holy Scripture and the Spirit which ever 
produces and animates the peculiar life of the Church. It is 
this consciousness which the orthodox Protestant Churches 
have set forth in, and by, their rule of interpretation. The 
exposition is to be made through the operation of the Christian 
Spirit and in its interest and direction, so that everything in 
the Scriptures in agreement with this Spirit, or which stands in 
any relation to it, may be observed, and whatever nourishes 
and enlightens the faith, may be apprehended and brought out. 
In this Spirit the unity of the fundamental ideas in the Old and 
New Testament is found and preserved, because it furnishes 
not only the subjective condition for the proper freedom 
toward, but also the proper veneration for, the Bible in its 
exegetical and critical treatment. Hence an expositor, working 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST 57 


in and for the Church, must perform his duty in strict harmony 
with this Christian Spirit. The Bible is to be its own ex- 
pounder, and the Spirit that dwells in it and in the Church, 
expounds itself. In every literary production the subjective 
spirit seeks the objective spirit, but cannot find it if it is not of 
the same nature and tendency. The Christian Spirit is not 
only plainly visible in the Holy Scriptures, but is also con- 
stantly to be known in the movements and facts of the Chris- 
tian life. According to all the most highly honored Confessors, 
the Holy Scriptures, from the very beginning, have exercised 
an essential influence upon the establishment and preservation 
of that peculiar spiritual life which they regarded as the highest 
and most precious treasure. But if the Scriptures have pro- 
duced such spiritual effects as those which are presented to us 
in the peculiar life of the Church, then this life must ever be 
the very point of departure from which we may again penetrate 
into the Scriptures. Only he who is consciously moved by 
this peculiar spiritual life will be able to discover and understand 
the source from which it emanates. 

If the interpreter dwells in this spiritual life he will natur- 
ally and necessarily reach the conclusion that the highest and 
most central point of Holy Scripture, which constitutes its real, 
fundamental bond of unity, is the Incarnation, the Person, and 
the Redemptive Work of Christ. All Scripture stands in a 
certain relation to Him. The entire Old Testament points 
forward to the fullness of time, and the New Testament begins 
with it. From this fact it follows necessarily that whoever 
wishes to understand the Scriptures fully and correctly must 
first take his position in this highest, most central point, in 
Christ. No irreligious person can ever rightly penetrate the 
Holy Scriptures. Without the opening of the spiritual eye in 
man, he can understand the Scriptures as little as he can under- 
stand Christ Himself. Even Science is compelled to confess 
that no one has the ability to interpret a written document 
without possessing its spirit. The largest and most important 
part of the Bible is full of a mystical religious spirit, and the 
religious information presents itself to us as a revelation of God. 
The principal ideas of this Revelation are: Creation; the Fall 


58 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


of Man; the consequent corruption of the whole human race; 
Grace and Redemption. All these facts are far above the com- 
prehension of the natural man. Hence the Holy Spirit, speak- 
ing in the Scriptures, is alone able fully to understand and prop- 
erly to interpret them. Therefore this Spirit must animate the 
interpreter. The spirit of the interpreter must be in full har- 
mony with the spirit of the author. 

At the same time this spiritual element must ever be kept 
in proper condition and limits by the Grammatico- Historical 
element. The Scriptures must be received and considered for 
what they really are, according to strictly historical faithfulness, 
for the apprehension and preservation of the historical and 
human side of the Biblical content asa whole. This is neces- 
sary for the Church herself, in order that she may safeguard the 
soundness of her faith and doctrines. It must always be remem- 
bered thatin some respects the whole content of the Sacred 
Scriptures is something historical, and that therefore it has its 
human side. The eternal supernatural facts have entered into 
the conditions of human apprehension, and it is this human 
element, consisting in the many extensive passages of appar- 
ently little or any vital importance to saving knowledge, and 
the great inequality of the Biblical authors in form and contents, 
which requires the most scientific and careful interpretation. 

In expounding the Scriptures the mystery of the inner life 
reveals itself. The Scriptures actually become a tribunal to the 
interpreter, which will either approve or condemn him. Who- 
ever is not already in possession of the principal substance of 
Holy Scripture will necessarily be put to shame. Neither 
intelligence or skill will avail anything if the spiritual eye is not 
sound. The declaration of the Apostle Paul that the natural 
man is unable to apprehend and understand the things of the 
Spirit of God (I Corinthians 2:14) is found to be perfectly true 
in all doctrines and precepts taken singly, as well as in the 
general truths of Scripture and their application. Hence the 
relation of the inner life to the objective truth, the internal, 
heartfelt direction toward it, and an intrinsic connection with 
the proving and judging Spirit of the Scriptures, is of decisive 
importance in all and every exposition of the Bible. This is 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST 59 


substantiated by the fact that all the changes in Exegesis have 
originated in the shifting of the position respecting the principal 
interests of life. It is therefore wrong to suppose that the 
changes in Exegesis are the result of Scriptural interpretation. 
Such is not the case. The changes always occur in the general 
knowledge of human objectives and desires. 


On making an examination of the mutations in Exegesis we 
find that the allegorical form of interpretation was the first to 
gain ascendancy. Origen erected it into a theory, and his 
theory was used throughout the Church. A\llegorical interpre- 
tation presupposes, or takes for granted before hand, that 
besides the verbal sense there is still another, a higher meaning 
in the word, or words, of Scripture. And the Scriptures actu- 
ally contain passages which must be understood in this manner, 
especially in the Old Testament. There is a symbolical mean- 
ing in many of its customs, institutions and usages, as in circum- 
cision for example. The heart is to be circumcised, and not 
the flesh. (See: Deut. 10:16, Deut. 30:6, Romans 2:28, 29). 
Much in the Prophetical sayings is symbolical. The highly fig- 
urative language in chapters 65 and 66 of Isaiah is the expression 
of a spiritual glory of which he must have been conscious, but 
purposely treated his material in this peculiar way. The spir- 
itual germ of the contents would be lost if the symbolical char- 
acter of the Old Testament history were disregarded. A great 
part of the Biblical material also has a mystical signification. 
Without the recognition and acknowledgment of this fact the 
Bible can never be understood. The changeable relation of the 
soul to God, as presented in the Psalms, is very mysterious. 
Everyone can feel the presence of this element there, but who 
can express what is really intended? It is therefore to be pre- 
sumed, and can easily be proved, that there is material here for 
allegorical interpretation. But the interpreter’s presumption 
must be limited to the portions in which the allegorical element 
is evident. Had the allegorical interpretation been confined to 
this limitation it would have retained its earlier authoritative 
position, but by being applied to whole books indiscriminately, 
and by losing sight of the historical element because only the 


60 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


idea was sought after and valued, it became productive of many 
grave errors and had to lose its hold upon the Church. 

In a general sense the allegorical interpretation may be 
called symbolical, while in a special sense it may be called typ- 
ical. The Typical interpretation has reference to certain repre- 
sentations of former times, which can find their explanation 
only in fulfillment. Thus in Romans 5, Adam is represented 
as a type, and Jesus Christ as the antitype. Adam was the 
image of all that had been lost, and as such he already pointed 
to Jesus Christ, the Restorer. In like manner the sacrifices 
recorded in the Pentateuch were considered to be temporary 
signs which pointed to a coming, all-powerful redemption from 
sin. This is proved to be true in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 

The validity of the Typical interpretation 1s found in the 
real existence of a spiritual bond of union between the entire 
contents of the Old and New Testaments. The principle of 
Biblical religion runs through all phenomena, and whatever 
life, in word, action and suffering, has sprung from this prin- 
ciple and its contest with the world, is the product of one and 
the same Spirit. Hence we have reason to presume that word 
and action must agree. Indeed, all those phenomena are so 
many degrees of development, which stand intrinsically related 
to the appearance of Christ as the highest and most perfect 
among them. A\ll is completely fulfilled in Him. He is the 
concrete reality of all Bible truth, in word, symbol and type. 
But in explaining types we must not take it for granted that the 
sacred writers were always fully conscious of their meaning. 
Not the thoughts and consciousness of the recording subject, 
but the typical significance of the object presented, must be 
interpreted. Where this rule is not observed the Typical 
interpretation becomes unreliable and dangerous. 

There is also a Moral, or Tropological, interpretation, 
according to which Holy Scripture, besides the Literal, pos- 
sesses another sense which refers to obligations and duties. 
This also has its true side, which is found in the general prac- 
tical tendency and productiveness of the contents of the Bible. 
Nowhere do we meet with mere speculation or mere knowledge 
‘without nourishing food for the practical life. Hence the prac- 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST 61 


tical exposition must have its place, especially in those portions 
of Holy Scripture which indicate a practical tendency. But 
even where the practical relation is not at once visible, the char- 
acter of the subject-matter may be practical. It is the expound- 
er’s duty not merely to apprehend the objective truth, but also 
to indicate its practical relation, even where this is not given, 
for this relation belongs to the complete apprehension of the 
object. It is never sufficient to represent a truth as a mere 
object of knowledge, nor can it be properly and fully under- 
stood unless it is apprehended in connection with the real 
interests of life. The Tropological exposition, however, be- 
comes false and dangerous as soon as the expounder tries to 
invent a practical relation where there actually is none in the 
objective representation. This often occurs in sermons, in 
which the text is made to offer a number of practical inferences 
that really do not exist anywhere else than in the mind of the 
speaker. 

There is an element of truth in each one of the methods of 
interpretation which have been mentioned, and they may be 
used with perfect safety provided that the erroneous tendency 
which lies in them is properly held in check. And the same 
may be said of the Verbal mode of interpretation, which in its 
exclusive application takes for granted that in every passage of 
Scripture there is only one sense. This has led some Theolo- 
gians and many common people to the conclusion to make use 
of no other means of interpretation than the Bible itself. There 
are ministers at the present time who profess to draw their ser- 
mons directly from the Scriptures, without the assistance of a 
single theological work. However we have already seen that 
we find not only the verbal, but also the symbolical, mystical 
and topical elements in the Scriptures, which dare not be 
ignored. The use merely of the simple verbal sense must 
destroy all imagery, all pictures of fancy, such as are by nature 
common to all human speech. Though it is true that in every 
recorded utterance there is sometimes only one sense to be 
acknowledged, yet great caution must be exercised in determin- 
ing the truth contained therein, 

The Philosophical mode of interpretation, which has been 


62 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


so extensively employed in this century, is objectionable princi- 
pally on this account, that it acts entirely against the true idea 
of interpretation, because it takes its position outside of the 
Scriptures. Its presuppositions externalize the content of the 
Bible, and something is brought in entirely foreign thereto. 
Nevertheless there is an element of truth also in this mode of 
interpretation. It gives to the expounder a rational, logical 
insight into, and a clearer judgment of, many dark passages. In 
the case of apparent or seeming contradictions, it enables the 
interpreter to discover and remove them. 

The opposite of this is the Traditional, Churchly interpre- 
tation, developed and sanctioned by the Catholic Church, and 
bound by the regula fidei of her tradition, the Decreta Concil- 
iorum, Concensus Patrum, Praxis Ecclesias. This mode of 
interpretation evidently contradicts the true idea of the art. It 
is a fact that this churchly interpretation may be traced back to 
Irenaeus, who was its first scientific exponent and advocate. 
He and his followers took it for granted that the doctrine of the 
Church was of Apostolic origin, as well as the Scriptures, and 
that therefore they could not contradict each other. We have 
already seen that such a regula fidei contains a measure of truth. 
But is not too much confidence placed in the certainty of tra- 
dition? Who is able to prove satisfactorily that this regula 
fidei did actually originate with the Apostles, and that it was 
nothing more than the pure result of Apostolical tradition? 
Even if we were to take it for granted that at the time of 
Irenaeus the regula fidei contained nothing but truth, it could 
not do justice to the historical peculiarities and individual mani- 
foldness of the Biblical books. Because of this insufficiency the 
principle cannot be regarded as the highest, and as the only 
authentic guide to truth. 

Over against all the modes of interpretation we have men- 
tioned, including the Traditional principle, we have also the 
Spiritualistic interpretation, in which the so-called inner light 
plays a conspicuous part. Those who hold this principle main- 
tain the true maxim that Holy Scripture, in which the Holy 
Spirit dwells, can be expounded only by one who himself pos- 
sesses this Spirit. But a grave error attached itself to this prin- 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST 63 


ciple. Its advocates ignored the historical character of the 
Scriptures, considering them to be simply an emanation from God, 
which fell from the lips and pens of men, without partaking of 
anything essentially human. Thereby they make of man merely 
a mechanism, a passive instrument of communication. The 
deceptive character of this principle lies in the fact that it leads 
its subjects to imagine themselves to be filled with the purely 
Biblical Spirit, while at the same time there is not, and cannot 
be, an agreement among them as to what that Spirit really is. 
Lacking the guidance of an historical element and character, no 
one is able to determine whether he has the true Spirit or not, 
for there are many spirits that have gone out into the world, 
and St. John councils us to prove these spirits, whether they 
be of God (I John 4:1). This can only be done by means of 
language and history, or in accordance with the Grammatico- 
Historical rule, 

Having seen, now, that all the different modes, or princi- 
ples, of interpretation used in the Church successively contain 
certain elements of truth which dare not be set aside, but that 
each and every one of them is defective in being too narrow 
and one-sided when employed alone, we are naturally led to 
inquire after the true principle. And here, as intimated once 
before, we arrive at no other conclusion than this, that the 
Bible is to be expounded with the constant application of all the 
Hermeneutical principles, in their fixed reciprocal action and 
reaction upon one another. The Grammatico-Historical is the 
first and fundamental principle. 

The written word of the Bible must be viewed as the ex- 
pression of facts of thought and feeling, of which the writers 
were not mere unconscious organs, but which were realized in 
a human manner in the human spirit, and also set forth in the 
same manner. Therefore the Bible is to be expounded as all 
such realized facts of thought are expounded. As a matter of 
course the hypothesis and interest, of which we have spoken 
before, must be at hand. It is to be presumed that the Scrip- 
tures as a whole are intended to awaken, nourish and perfect 
the spiritual life in man; that the Divine Spirit in the Scrip- 
tures speaks to, and unites Himself with the spirit of man, and 


64 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


that in this Spirit the Scriptures have their unity. By the Spirit 
in man we understand the tendency of the soul toward God, 
the striving of the soul after God as the highest good, the seek- 
ing of God with self-conscious aspiration, the longing for 
righteousness, the search for God’s grace, and the striving 
after Eternal Life in His communion. Thus we learn that the 
Holy Spirit is the principle of all religious life, and that no one 
can make a proper presupposition respecting Bible Truth unless 
he stands firmly grounded in the Spirit. 

The principle and highest rule may therefore be stated in 
this way; When with the application of all the general herme- 
neutical principles stated in former lectures, the sense of a pas- 
sage has been discovered and determined, so that it can be 
proved on grammatical and historical grounds, then this sense 
alone is to be accepted as the true one, and all interpretation, 
consideration and application must be deduced from this, its 
historical definition. But its real content and power can be 
understood only by him who apprehends it in the spirit of one 
saved through Christ, and who values it in the interest of the 
Christian Church. Only then is the sense of a passage fully 
explained when not only the nature and ground of its agree~ 
ment with all other passages already defined, but also its differ- 
ence from them, has been so apprehended that the unity of the 
Spirit, who reveals Himself in the Scriptures, is not destroyed 
thereby. 


The Application of these Principles to 
the Work Itself 


has a claim upon the interpreter. For, as we have 
observed before, it is necessary for him to remove 
everything that may stand between him and any sacred 
writer, to identify himself with him, and yet to maintain his 
consciousness of the existence of the real difference. This 
elimination requires: First, knowledge of the means of commu- 
nication, namely, language; Second, knowledge of both sub- 
ject and object, that is to say, knowledge concerning the author 
at the time he wrote, which requires information relating to the 
author and the history of his work, as well as ability to form a 
supposition or an hypothesis in case historical data are wanting, 
and to discover the connection and principal tendency in a doc- 
ument; and Third, a proper reverence for the Bible. 


E ACH AND EVERY one of the principles now set forth 
G 





In addition to what has already been stated in regard to the 
subject of language, I will only add that the Bible was written in 
three languages, the Hebrew, the Chaldee, and the Hellenistic 
Greek. Besides this there are some words of Egyptian and 
Persian origin in the sacred text. Dr. Johann L. S. Lutz says 
that we may distinguish a period in which the Hebrew language 
appears in completed form, with its peculiar development, and 
another period in which a different dialect had entered and cor- 
rupted it. This was the Aramaic dialect, mostly used in the 
prose parts. AJl this must be fully understood by the inter- 
preter, and it is his duty to use every aid at his command, in 
order to obtain the true and full meaning. He is in conscience 
bound to employ all suitable traditional means, such as the 
punctuation and accentuation of the Old Testament, the exeget- 
ical works of the Rabbins, the ancient versions of the Scrip- 
tures, and the expositions of the Christian Fathers. 


[ 65 J 


66 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


By means of the proper use of language and of traditional 
helps, the interpreter must connect the apprehension and appli- 
cation of the context in which single words of pivotal impor- 
tance are found, and by which their meaning and purpose 
become more or less plain. In many instances the narrower 
context already gives sufficient light. But where this is not the 
case, the more extended context of a whole book or epistle 
must be consulted. We have already referred to the indispen- 
sableness of these hermeneutical agencies. They serve to 
fathom the sense, and also lead to a surer knowledge of the 
significance of single words. Moreover, they extend their use- 
fulness to other and larger parts of Holy Scripture. 


Catechetics and the Heidelberg 


Catechism 


a HE HISTORY of the Heidelberg Catechism directs our 
attention back to a period when the Christian Church 
was agitated to its very foundation. This agitation had 
grown deeper and wider ever since the memorable year 
1517 A. D., when Luther in Germany and Zwingli in Switzer- 
land had boldly proclaimed the Gospel doctrine of justification 
by faith, in opposition to the Papal doctrine of justification by 
good works. But the contest existed not only between Roman 
Catholics and Protestants. Among the followers of Luther 
themselves a deep-rooted and wide-spread dissatisfaction had 
rapidly developed, was agitating the Christian mind in every 
country, destroying the peace and harmony of the people, and 
thus threatening in some parts to annihilate the new church. 
This was especially the case in the Palatinate where the peace- 
able followers of Philip Melanchthon were fiercely denounced 
and persecuted by hyper-Lutheran preachers. 

In this deplorable condition the Church was found when 
Frederick the Third, born in 1515, entered upon the govern- 
ment of the Palatinate in the year 1559 in consequence of the 
death, without issue, of the Elector Otto Henry. Though 
reared in strictly Catholic surroundings, he early formed a close 
relationship with the renowned Albert Hardenberg, and 
through him, or through John 4 Lasco, he was won over to the 
Evangelical faith, in which his pious wife, Maria of Branden- 
burg-Baireuth, supported and confirmed him. He regarded 
Luther as a distinguished instrument of God, but did not con- 
sider him to be infallible. Neither did he want to be called a 
Calvinist, because he had not been baptized into Calvin, nor 
into any other man, but found his comfort alone in the merits 
of Christ. 

Frederick began his government as a friendly, meek and 
pious prince, seeking with all his might to advance the glory of 


[ 67 J 


68 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


God and the temporal and eternal welfare of his people. His 
clear mind and blameless morality, his unwavering faithfulness 
and restless activity in behalf of his beloved subjects, shone 
forth with a bright light and cast an imperishable lustre upon 
his life. Everyone received an irresistible impression of his 
simple, heartfelt piety, which was the fundamental element of 
his being. 

Two years after the death of his father, Frederick moved 
from Simmern to Heidelberg where Telmann Hesshusius, the 
Lutheran zelot, was at that time engaged in agitating the people 
to such a degree that Frederick found it necessary to compel 
him to leave the city, and in his stead to call men to the uni- 
versity who could be trusted. Among these new teachers 
there were two, Ursinus and Olevianus, who have immortal- 
ized themselves by the authorship of the Heidelberg Catechism. 
The former was twenty-eight and the latter only twenty-six 
years of age when they entered upon their important duties in 
the University of Heidelberg. Ursinus had been educated to 
a great extent by Melanchthon and had imbibed much of his 
mildness of spirit, while Olevianus had been trained in the 
school of Calvin, and was full of the master’s glowing zeal. To 
these well-prepared instruments Frederick III. entrusted the 
preparation of a catechism that might, with the blessing of God, 
bring peace and harmony to his subjects. In a few months the 
dificult work was accomplished, and so successfully that the 
Heidelberg Catechism has now for more than three hundred 
years stood preeminent among all the symbolical books of the 
Reformed Church. Dr. Goebel justly says: ‘‘The Heidelberg 
Catechism may in the proper sense of the word be regarded as 
the flower and fruit of the entire German and French Reforma- 
tion. It combines Lutheran warmth, Melanchthonian clearness, 
Zwinglian simplicity, and Calvinian fire, and is therefore the 
only common confessional and doctrinal book of the entire 
Reformed Church, from the Palatinate to the Netherlands, from 
the East of Europe to the far West of America.”’ 

In the Autumn of 1562 the manuscript of the Catechism 
was presented to the Elector, who himself had watched the 
progress of the work with the deepest interest and had also 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST 69 


actively assisted in its construction. In the month of Decem- 
ber, 1562, the Elector called a General Synod for the purpose 
of making a thorough examination of the Catechism, and on the 
19th day of January, 1563, he subscribed his name to the intro- 
duction which had probably been prepared by himself, and thus 
perhaps only a few weeks later the whole book was presented 
to the public. 


But the Catechism had scarcely made its appearance when 
it became the object of such fierce and shameful attacks that we 
at present can form no proper idea of them. Catholics and 
Lutherans rivaled one another in denouncing this precious jewel 
of the Reformation. Frederick III. was so firmly persuaded of 
the Gospel truths set forth in his Catechism that he manfully 
defended it against all enemies. A long list of complaints 
against Frederick was laid before the Diet. He asked that he 
be granted a few moments for consideration, and in fifteen 
minutes he gave the following answer to the accusations: 


‘‘T am still of the same opinion, as I said to your Majesty 
before I left the room, that in matters of conscience and faith I 
acknowledge only one Lord, who is Lord of Lords and King of 
Kings, and I say therefore that it is not simply a cap full of flesh 
which is at stake, but the soul and its salvation, entrusted to me 
by my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and which I am obliged 
and ready to preserve unto Him. Therefore I cannot grant 
unto your Majesty the right to command and govern this soul, 
because this belongs to God alone, who has created it. . . 
As far as my Catechism is concerned, I am not ashamed to 
confess its contents, especially since it is so well fortified with 
proofs from the Holy Scriptures that it cannot be subverted, 
and I hope, with the help of God, that it will not be overthrown 
hereafter. Besides, I console myself with the fact that my 
Saviour Jesus Christ has given to me and to all his faithful 
ones the assured promise that whatsoever I shall lose for the 
sake of His honor or name, shall be restored to me an hun- 
dredfold in the world to come. Thus I commend myself most 
obediently to the grace of your Imperial Majesty.’’ 


70 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


This joyful confession made such a powerful impression 
upon all who were present that the Elector August of Saxony 
approached Frederick with the kind declaration: “‘Fritz, thou 
art more pious than we all!’’ And the Margrave of Baden is 
gaid to have made the avowal to those around him: *‘Why do 
you assail this prince, for he is more pious than all of us are Lx 
From this time forward, and as a consequence of the Elector’s 
fearless and happy confession, the Reformed Church as a whole 
enjoyed the unquestioned right to exist in Germany. In the 
Reformed countries the Catechism was received with great joy 
and found ready favour in all the Reformed congregations that 
had been formed along the banks of the Rhein. The first gen- 
eral synod of Julich-Cleve-Berg and Mark, in 1610, passed the 
resolution: ‘‘That as they had done in the past, so they would 
in the future hold the Word of God to be their only rule and 
guide in faith and doctrine. In the second place they held that 
the sum and substance of the Word of God has been well 
expressed in the Heidelberg Catechism, and therefore directed 
that this Catechism was to be used as hitherto in the schools 
and in the churches.’’ 

Many efforts were put forth to popularize the Catechism 
as a church-book of the noblest kind. It was ordered to be 
read in prescribed sections, or parts, to the congregations. 
The reading of such a part occupied nine Sundays. In the 
sermons frequent reference had to be made to the Catechism. 
Even regular sermons on the Catechism, on Sunday afternoons, 
were introduced, and to this end the Catechism was divided 
into fifty-two pericopes. In some places the whole congrega- 
tion was catechized, or examined, by the minister, after the 
sermon or lecture had been delivered. In the University pro- 
fessorships were established for the purpose of giving instruc- 
tion regularly in the Catechism to theological students. In 
short, efforts were made from all sides to indoctrinate the whole 
Church in the Catechism, and to attain this object it was made 
the text-book of public instruction and public confession, a 
fountain and basis of the common knowledge of Christianity. 

The Catechism was not confined to Germany. Having 
been conceived and born in the Melanchthonian and Calvinian 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST cL 


spirit, it entered at once upon its journey around the world, 
because its genuine Gospel truth and spirit were called of God 
to spread as far and wide as Christianity itself. In the Nether- 
lands the Catechism was received with open arms, and the the- 
ologians there were full of its praise. The Synod of Dort in 
1618-1619 most sclemnly adopted it as their confession of faith. 
Also England, Scotland, Switzerland, France, Hungary, and 
Poland accepted the Catechism, and in 1619 it was brought to 
America by the Holland settlers of New Amsterdam, now 
known as New York. With the exception of the Bible, no 
book found at that time so extensive a circulation as our Cate- 
chism. In an era when the Bible had been translated into only 
forty languages the Catechism was already being published in 
seventeen. 

But there have also been times when the incomparable 
value of the Catechism was lost sight of, when almost every 
preacher believed himself to be able to construct even a better 
confessional book. Thus the congregations were flooded with 
productions of this sort which lived scarcely as long as their 
authors. At such times as those we experienced in America 
in the early part of the present century (the Nineteenth ), the 
fanatical New Measure spirit caused many of our ministers and 
people to regard the Catechism as being altogether insufficient 
to satisfy the religious wants of the multitude, and therefore not 
only worthless, but actually injurious to the cause of Christ. 
Happily these evil tendencies have always been checked in 
their disturbing and destructive career. The consciousness of 
the comfort contained in the Catechism has always outlasted 
the efforts to remove this confessional book from the memory 
of the people. 


Whoever approaches our venerable teacher, the Heidel- 
berg Catechism, with a sincere, inquiring mind, must see and 
feel that its aim is to make us conscious of the highest interests 
of mankind, and to bring us into full possession of the one 
thing needful. For this purpose it first directs our atten- 
tion downward, deep down into the abyss of the apostasy from 
God, and the terrible reign and results of sin. Then it leads us 


fe THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


upward to the very throne of Heaven, from whence God in 
His mercy has sent salvation to our souls. The first word of 
the Catechism is like the sublime prelude of an organ in which 
the hand of a master comprehends everything which the further 
progress of divine worship, the singing, prayer, and preaching, 
each in its own way, brings to completion. The fundamental 
tone of the whole book concerns man’s only comfort in life 
and in death. This chord is touched upon every page, and 
through all the leaves this melody resounds. In such sacred 
simplicity, in such overpowering greatness is this melody here 
composed that we justly place it side by side with the highest 
productions of the human spirit, and quietly drink in its heav- 
enly music. Let us therefore attentively consider the first 
question: ‘What is thine only Comfort in Life and Death?”’ 
‘‘That with body and soul, both in life and in death, I am not 
my own, but belong to my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ, who 
with His precious blood, hath fully satisfied for all my sins, and 
delivered me from all the power of the devil, and so preserves 
me that without the will of my Heavenly Father not a hair shall 
fall from my head; yea, that all things must be subservient to 
my salvation. Wherefore, by His Holy Spirit, he also assures 
me of eternal life, and makes me heartily willing and ready 
henceforth to live unto Him.’’ * 

In this first question and answer we have, in simple lan- 
guage and small compass, the deepest and grandest conception 
of the entire plan of salvation: Man with his ever returning 
want of comfort in life and in death on the one hand, and the 
Triune God with His all-sufficient supply on the other, just as 
they have been, and are, represented in the book of eternal 


*Throughout his ministry, both as a pastor and a teacher, Dr. Herman 
Rust revered the Heidelberg Catechism. He frequently said: ‘The Hei- 
delberg Catechism is an inexhaustible fountain of divine truth, and therefore 
a young man who thoroughly memorizes the text of this confession of faith 
and masters its teachings will be able to preach the Gospel without dearth 
to the end of a long life-time of service in the Church.’’ Above all he 
loved the first answer. He considered it to be the key to the whole Con- 
fession. He said that the essentials of the Gospel are contained in the first 
answer in the Heidelberg Catechism. J debbun thd 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST 73 


truth itself. If we ponder the nature and condition of man in 
the light of revelation and experience, we can see him enter 
upon the stage of life with a cry for comfort, and all through 
childhood and youth, through manhood and old age, there are 
a thousand causes from without and from within, which press 
him to seek and to sigh for comfort. When sure hopes are 
disappointed and fond expectations blasted; when tender affec- 
tions find no response, and cold, cruel treatment causes the 
heart to bleed; when health begins to fail, and death spreads 
desolation all around; yes, when the voice of the Spirit whis- 
pers within: ‘‘Adam, where art thou?’’ and the conscience is 
aroused by the sad experience of sin and guilt, and the sentence 
of condemnation resounds from the just tribunal of God, what 
else can be expected from a poor, helpless sinner than the 
heart-rending cry: Oh, where shall rest be found—rest for my 
weary soul? This world wide, all important fact was deeply 
impressed upon the minds of the framers of our Catechism, 
and they have given searching and proper expression to it at 
the threshold of their glorious temple of truth. 

But in apprehending and representing man in his ever re- 
curring want of comfort, they did not forget the blessed fact that 
there is a balm in Gilead, and an all-powerful physician who is 
ready to administer the needed consolation, provided that the 
sinner complies with His conditions. Not in the thousand and 
one objects of the world, such as men are apt to imagine and 
present, can the real comfort be found, because all these things 
are changeable and therefore can never give real and abiding 
peace. The question is for one comfort that shall remain unal- 
tered in power though everything else perishes, and which shall 
never lose its soothing light, neither in days of prosperity, nor 
in days of adversity, neither in health nor in sickness, neither 
in life nor in death. 

This heaven-born, all-victorious comfort consists in the 
realized fact that we know ourselves to be the rightful property 
of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who has purchased us 
with his precious blood. And belonging to Him, we are deliv- 
ered from the bondage and condemnation of sin and of the 
vanity of this passing world. 


The Decadence of Faith 


LL DEGENERATION and separation spring from the 
distraction and perversion of the God-given religion. 
The original life union of man with God having been 
lost, men are unable to understand one another. Hence 

country rises against country, nation against nation, and one 

system of worship against another. ‘*Wherefore God also 
gave them up to uncleanness, through the lusts of their own 
hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves.” 

(Romans 1:24; I Timothy 6:3-5). 

The true religion, on the other hand, has from the begin- 
ning brought forth, and at all times produces unity and life- 
communion, the Church, among those who live in the Cove- 
nant with God. (I John 1:8; Ephesians 4:4, 5; Acts 2:42). 
Sinful man is brought back again into this communion of the 
true religion and of salvation when he permits himself to be 
determined by the Holy Spirit, to give up his own arbitrary, 
selfish and perverted life entirely, and to live in God’s holy 
truth. (Matthew 16:25). 

This self-resignation of man to God, the Lord has effected 
not only once, by creating him in His image, but also, after the 
entrance of sin, by all His providential and gracious operations 
intended to re-establish the interrupted life-union. To this 
fact the whole Old Testament, and especially the history of the 
chosen people, bears abundant testimony. ‘*For Thou hast 
confirmed to Thyself Thy people Israel to bea people unto 
Thee forever: And Thou, Lord, art become their God.” 
(II Samuel 7:24). 

Such a continuous, ever interfering and direct operation of 
God upon the human race was indispensably necessary for the 
restoration, preservation and furtherance of the true religion. 
Unquestionably man might have obtained all kinds of notions 
respecting God from Nature, conscience and history; but in 
no wise would these so-called natural means have been sufiicient 


[740 





leedlod 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST io 


to restore and advance the true religion. Their imperfect man- 
ifestations cannot illumine the heart, cannot change man and 
convert him to God. This is proved by the fact that the insuf- 
ficient directions of nature are left unnoticed, are misinterpreted 
and abused by him. (Romans 1:19-25). The successive order 
of God’s inclinations in spirit and life toward His creatures 
runs through our race from its very beginning. By means of 
chosen instrumentalities God’s operations for the removal of 
the sin-eflected separations among men, and the preservation 
of the true religion of the Covenant are coursing in an uninter- 
rupted current through mankind. The true religion, the cove- 
nant of man with God, is completely restored and entirely per- 
fected for all nations and ages in the incarnate Saviour of the 
world. In Him, the God-man, we have the absolute conclu- 
sion of all the gracious inclinations of God toward us, and of 
all His operations for our union with Him. Beyond the moral 
and spiritual grandeur presented in Him to the human race 
there is nothing higher or more perfect. In Him we have the 
all-saving truth and the whole of salvation. No other and no 
better Gospel can ever arise. No other foundation can ever 
be laid. He alone is for all men the way, the truth, and the 
life. (Acts 4:1; I Cor. 8:11; John 14:6). 

But we must ever penetrate more deeply into Him, into 
His truth and life. We must increase in height and fruitfulness 
in Him, the Head of humanity. This is accomplished through 
His promised Spirit, but not by new, extraordinary imparta- 
tions, and much less by purifying and perfecting that which has 
been given in Him. The increase follows only the way of the 
Lord: ‘“‘Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will 
guide you into ail truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but 
whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show 
you things to come.’’ “‘He shall glorify me: for he shall receive 
of mine, and shall show it unto you.’’ (John 16:18, 14). 

It is therefore the office of the Holy Spirit, on the one 
hand, to preserve the perfect divine Truth, given in Christ and 
through His inspired Apostles; and on the other hand to 
reveal to us the mysterious meaning and power of salvation as 
He draws it from Christ, in order that thereby we may grow 


76 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


more and more in the knowledge of Divine Truth, which con- 
sidered in itself is not capable of improvement. Hence the 
Apostle says: ‘‘That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto 
all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing 
in the knowledge of God.’’ (Colossians 1:10). But he also 
adds: ‘‘Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and 
vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of 
the world, and not after Christ. For in Him dwelleth all the 
fullness of the Godhead bodily.’’ (Colossians 11:8,9). In 
His operations and the impartation of His truth, salvation, and 
life, God unfolds His own nature, and gives Himself to his 
creatures. 

The creation of man in the likeness of God consists in this, 
that his understanding and reason were illumined by God's 
light, pure and full, his heart filled with the love of God, and 
his will directed by God, all to the glorious end that he might 
live happy in union with God and to His praise. (Genesis 
1:27: 5:1; Acts 17:28). Consequently religion is the greatest 
gift of God and man’s most precious treasure. It is the funda- 
mental condition, the light, power, and crown of Heaven- 
pleasing and blessed existence. To be a man in the highest and 
original sense of the word is possible only under the divine 
influence of true religion. The extermination of religion would 
necessarily imply the extermination of man himself. ‘‘Every 
good and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down 
from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither 
shadow of turning.”’ (James 1:17). ‘‘For what maketh thee 
to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not 
receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as 
if thou hadst not received it?’’ (I Cor. 4:17). “‘For what is 
a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his 
own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?”’ 
(Matthew 16:26). 

With the appearance of sin man’s covenant life with God 
has become distracted and perverted. In this perversion, in 
the selfish nature of sin, all false religions and religious opinions 
have their source and animating power. For all false religions, 
not only of single individuals, but also of whole societies and 


Lend 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST i7 


nations, are the fabrications of sinful man, mere caricatures of 
the true religion. The principal heathen national religions 
which appear upon the pages of history are these: 

I. The Chinese religion, originally a most simple service 
of nature, which gradually progressed to a sacred veneration 
for, and worship of, ancestors, especially of the Emperors as 
the fathers of the nation and of the people. 

II. The Indian religion with its three hundred and thirty 
million deities, all of which proceeded from the original Being, 
the so-called Arch-Brahma, who is in himself the creating, 
destroying, and preserving power, Brahma, Siva, and Vishnu. 

III. Buddhism, which knows of no personal God and leads 
men to seek their own destruction. 

IV. The religion of the Persians, Chaldeans, Phoenicians, 
and Arabians, consisting essentially in the worship of the stars. 

V. The religion of Egypt, which has given a particular 
god to every day and month of the year, who rule the destiny 
of all persons born on any particular day, a religion in which 
animals and plants are worshipped as the bearers of deities. 

VI. The religion of the Greeks and Romans, which con- 
sisted in the humanizing of divine things. 

VII. The religion of the ancient Germans, which was 
also a worship of nature, associated with Polytheism, and made 
everything depend upon an absolute fate. 

VI. Mohammedanism, which is a religion of pleasure 
on the one hand, and of cruelty on the other: decidedly a 
religion of the head, and therefore satisfied with absolute resig- 
nation, Islam, and the righteousness of works. 


These broad fundamental truths of Revelation, and the age- 
long fact of the misery of man, naturally and logically lead to 
the inquiry concerning the mission and agencies of the Church, 
the Means of Grace, the training of the young, the deepening 
of faith in the followers of Christ, and the extension of the 
blessing of Redemption among the peoples of the earth. Upon 
these subjects Dr. Herman Rust possessed definite conclusions 
and firm convictions, as the following writing shows. 


The Church, the Sacraments, Catechetics 
and Missions 
=—a1 HE BAPTISM of infants, as well as of adults, is the 


reception into the visible Church and admission to her 
blessed privileges ( Segensbereich). It is also the 
bestowal of a special gracious relation with Christ which 
may in a certain sense be called a regeneration and a change, 
just as the baptism of proselytes before the time of Christ was 
called a regeneration, and as in the time of Christ the emanci- 
pation of a slave by the Romans was called regeneration. But 
baptism by itself, without the hallowing influence of a truly 
righteous, exemplary and interceding family, in conformity 
with the baptismal vow, does not produce a new active life in 
God, neither in infants nor adults, as experience proves. It 
does not yet bring forth a new, regenerated creature to whom 
the words in I John 5:4 may apply: ‘For whosoever is born 
of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that 
overcometh the world, even our faith;’’ and also I John 3:9: 
“Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed 
remaineth in him; and he cannot sin because he is born of 
God.”’ 

But though infant baptism is not the perfect regeneration 
which brings about a new spiritual nature and a new spiritual 
mindedness in the children, yet the great majority of Christian 
Denominations believe it to be right to baptize children, con- 
trary to the view and practice of the Anabaptists. The reason 
is that Christian parents look upon themselves as being the 
property of Christ and therefore cannot do otherwise than to 
bring their children early to Christ, consecrating them to Him 
as His sanctified possession, according to the teaching of St. 
Paul: ‘‘Else were your children unclean; but now are they 
holy.’” (I Cor. 7:14). Christian parents not only have the 
right, but it is also their duty, to dedicate their children in bap- 
tism to Christ, and thus to give them to Jesus, the Redeemer, 
as His property, without waiting for their free consent 


[ 78 ] 





OF DR. HERMAN RUST 19 


{ Willensentscheidung). And they may be certain that the Lord 
Jesus who blessed the unconscious, unbaptized Jewish chil- 
dren (Mark 10) will also bless their own little ones from the 
beginning and fashion them into temples of God. For the 
Grace of God always makes the beginning, in order that man 
may then follow. A child of Christian parents is to grow up 
as a Christian child and to stand in the covenant-grace of a 
Christian family. (Psalm 103:17,18; 22:10,11; 71:6; Acts 
16:31-33). And as a baptized child it is from the earliest 
infancy to be encouraged to entrust itself to Christ as its 
Saviour, and by faith in Him to have grace, the hope of 
Heaven, and courage in death. 

In the case of Christian children who early follow this 
drawing of the Father in Heaven, who early pray to Jesus and 
love Him, and who, notwithstanding many struggles, do not by 
intentional sinning purposely withdraw from Him, it is not to 
be expected that they shall be conscious of the time and the cir- 
cumstances of their regeneration and conversion, and still less 
is this to be brought about by artificial questioning and urgency. 
As they grow up into the conscious love of their parents, so 
they also for the most part grow into the conscious grace and 
love of Christ. Only he who considers this gradual process to 
be impossible, by which in all probability most of the Chrisiians 
in Germany have come to a living faith, could reject infan 
baptism. But those also who have from childhood up been led 
by the Holy Ghost still stand in need of the Gospel truth: 
‘*That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is 
born of the Spirit is spirit,’’ (John 3:6), to show them clearly, 
and cause the truth to penetrate their souls, that only by regen- 
eration through water and the Spirit and by a living faith in 
Christ, does man enter into the Kingdom of God. Such 
preaching brings men to self-examination and to a conscious 
life in justification and regeneration. Otherwise such souls 
stand in danger of remaining contented in a feeble natural 
Christianity, and may never become true witnesses of Christ. 
Therefore it is also of great benefit to them to see and to expe- 
rience the zeal of persons who were revived and converted in 
riper years. 


80 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


Leading men in the Reformed Church in Germany, as well 
as many strictly Lutheran professors and preachers abroad, as 
for example, Ludwig Harms, speak urgently of the necessity of 
regeneration on the part of baptized persons who lead ungodly 
lives. Therefore it is to be lamented that in modern times a 
number of Lutheran theologians assert that regeneration takes 
place only in baptism; that all baptized persons are real mem- 
bers of the Body of Christ, and that it is wrong to say to 
ungodly baptized persons: You must be born again, because 
they have only to be converted to their baptismal regeneration. 
No other exposition is sustained by the proof of the Spirit of 
power and truth so strongly as the interpretation of Saint John 
3:3, You must be born again, or you are lost. 

Moreover wherever in Germany awakenings and conver- 
sions have occurred, this passage has always been one of the 
most potent and penetrating. ‘Where men are told that John 
3:3 does not apply to them any longer, there numerous revi- 
vals and conversions have never taken place. Experience 
abundantly proves that for God-forsaken baptized Christians, 
for Heathen, and for Jews there exists only one way to salva- 
tion and to sonship with God, namely, the path the jailor fol- 
lowed, and this is the way of salvation and regeneration through 
faith in Jesus Christ. When an unconverted man tells us that 
he was regenerated in baptism and that he for this reason can- 
not be born again, we must answer him by saying: Then you 
will be lost irredeemably, because without regeneration you, a 
carnally minded creature, cannot possibly enter the kingdom 
of God. 

By teaching that all baptized persons are regenerated chil- 
dren of God, the clear Biblical distinction between the children 
of the world and the children of God is erased. (I John 
3:3-10). The dignity of the child of God is thereby lowered, 
if it is taught to believe that baptized godless persons are also 
children of God. Regeneration into sonship with God through 
the firstborn from the dead, Jesus Christ, is the principal doc- 
trine of Christianity, and surely by such a mistaken understand- 
ing of the word ‘‘regenerated’’ or ‘‘regeneration,’’ the Gospel 
is robbed of its heart-searching power. Precisely this insistence 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST 81 


upon a personal experience of justification and regeneration in 
such a manner, namely, that without this experience no one 
has the right nor the ability to speak about Christian essentials, 
preserves the churches from, and protects them against, Unbe- 
lief and Rationalism, and the false faith of Romanism. 

The Church, the Ministry, and all professing Christians 
stand in a similar relation to the celebration and administration 
of the Lord’s Supper. The following words at the beginning 
of the Third Epistle of St. John, verse two, were addressed to 
his friend and brother Gaius: ‘‘Beloved, I wish above all things 
that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul 
prospereth.’’ The language is a transparent proof of the sin- 
cere love of the Apostle, and of his concern for the souls of 
other men. At the same time it impresses us with the fact that 
Gaius himself was ina very good spiritual condition, and that 
the state of his soul and his entire followship with Christianity 
were a source of great rejoicing to the Apostle John. Hence 
in the light of this incident the important question naturally 
arises: What is the condition of our own souls? Would the 
Apostle be able to give the testimony concerning us which he 
gave to Gaius? Could he express the wish that in all things it 
might be as well with us otherwise as it is with our souls? 

The great mistake all natural men make, and for which 
many of them will suffer eternally, is that they disregard the soul 
entirely, do not value their own souls nor care for them: that 
they are much more concerned about the perishable body, the 
mere earthly home of the soul, than they are about the soul it- 
self, which is created for eternity and empowered with all kinds 
of wonderful gifts and abilities. This they suffer to starve and 
to be ruined! Alas, in this respect the children of God often 
imitate the example of the people of the world in their walk and 
conversation, living as if they had no souls to save, in defiance 
of their perfect knowledge to the contrary, utterly indifferent 
to the call they have had from darkness into light, and wickedly 
heedless of their deeply touching experiences in heart and soul. 

What belongs to the health and prosperity of the soul? 
We answer: Genuine regeneration. Every unregenerated 
soul is sick. But in such temper of heart and frame of mind 


82 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


many professing Christians, who in the eyes of men must be 
considered to be regenerated in the full sense of the word, are 
admitted to the Lord’s Supper. Concerning the exceptional 
conditions which sometimes result from bad and negligent man- 
agement of churchly activity we may speak hereafter. In 
respect of such persons, the unregenerate and spiritually defec- 
tive, the activity of the Church is directed toward the support 
and development of the new man, the man who has been born 
again in so far, namely, as the Church has been and is able to 
contribute to his development and growth. The substantial 
feeding of the new man is obtained by the regenerate from 
Christ Himself. The Church can do nothing further than to 
administer the sacrament to him with which Christ has associ- 
ated this feeding. 

Besides this it is the duty of the Church to strive to keep 
him in a penitent and believing disposition, for the constant 
continuance of repentance and faith is necessary in order that 
Christ, implanted in him, may grow and obtain a proper form 
(Galatians 4:19). The new man must become master and con- 
queror over the old trunk into which he has been grafted, 
namely, the residue of the old Adamic nature. A peaceable 
dwelling together of both is impossible. Either the old man is 
crucified, or the new man will be choked by him. As little as 
Christ implants Himself magically in any person without the 
presence of the subjective receptivity, Just as little does He 
nourish the new man magically. The penitent and believing 
disposition must continue. This is the condition upon which 
alone the growth of the new man can take place. 

But now repentance continuously and daily renewed in 
faith and in the state of Grace, or the daily negation and cruci- 
fixion of the old man, together with the daily renewing faith, 
and consciousness of adoption, that is to say, the daily vivifica- 
tion of the new man, is nothing else than sanctification, or as it 
is called in Titus 3:5, ‘‘The washing of regeneration and the 
renewing of the Holy Ghost.’’ The activity of the Church in 
respect of the regenerate will therefore be directed to the sup- 
port of their faith and sanctification by means of the living 
preaching of the Gospel, and the Law, but the Law as presented 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST 83 


to us in the Gospel, especially in the example of Christ and His 
sufferings. Since this activity aims to give to the new man a 
permanent character and form, we will call it once for all the 
metamorphic, the edifying, promoting activity. 

An unconverted person is also still unregenerated, and 
upon him the Church expends her metanoetic activity. But he 
may stand in a twofold relation to her. An unregenerated per- 
son is certainly a natural man (cvOpe7ros WuyKos, I Corinthians 
2:14), and this is true also of the baptized child, which, as far 
as it is the object of Church activity, that is to say, according to 
its inner life, its thinking and knowing, is after its baptism still 
ignorant of the salvation offered by Christ. Nevertheless, 
everyone must see that there is a vast and essential difference 
between a baptized child and an adult Heathen or Jew, between 
those who do not yet believe and the unbelieving. The natural 
man, namely, can assume his relation to the Church in two 
ways: First, as he is in his inborn individuality, or, Second, as 
he has developed himself under the influence of his own capé, 
and the influence of unchristian surroundings, having thus 
already become a personality. In the former case the new 
born child is at once placed into a certain relation to the Chris- 
tian Church and her activity. The child is a personal being as 
well as the adult, but it is not yet a personality, It has person- 
ality in the abstract sense; it is personal; but it is not yet a 
personality in the concrete sense, describable as an important, 
a great or small, a noble or bad personality. Man becomes a 
personality in the concrete sense only through the cooperation 
of three factors, namely, his native individuality (natural tal- 
ents), his own self-determination, and the influences of his 
environment. The child becomes a personality in such a degree 
as by means of instruction it obtains the possibility of placing 
itself in a certain relation to the external world, and of acquir- 
ing knowledge for itself, maxims, views, tastes, tendencies, and 
so on, which necessarily demand self-determination and self- 
development. Asa child it is at first only an individual, hav- 
ing only latent talents and inclinations to one thing and another, 
and as such it participates in the beginning only in the general 
consequences of the Fall of man, namely, in original sin, that 


84 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


is to say, selfishness and the inborn special inclination toward 
this or that particular sin, but not in the historic particular con- 
sequences of sin. It is not yet infected with the God-opposing 
prejudices, false opinions, ungodliness, immorality, and so on. 
In a word, the evil within is still at the lowest mark of inten- 
siveness and extensiveness. The child is not yet a Christian, 
but by no means is it unchristian or antichristian. Thus it at 
once comes into connection with the Christian church. In 
baptism it receives the right to the pardon of sin wrought out 
by Christ, but also the beginning of a regenerating, sanctifying 
influence of Christ upon its being, and with this a claim to a 
Christian education in respect of its noetic side. Christian 
education, however, is twofold in character. First it is a train- 
ing in the narrower sense, as it proceeds from the parents and 
belongs to the Christian life. As such it has the task to limit 
the growth of evil, and by discipline to keep down the natural 
man to the lowest possible point. In the second place, it is 
Christian instruction, that is to say, instruction in the Gospel, 
begun by the parents as a part of their Christian life, then con- 
tinued and completed by the servants of the Church as part of 
their churchly work. The object of this instruction is to 
acquaint the child with the Word of God, with the historical 
record of the fact of salvation, and to lead it into the eTavoia, 
or life of renewal. Christian training in the narrower sense, 
or Christian discipline, stands related to Christian instruction as 
does the Law to the Gospel, or as in the childhood of humanity 
Moses stood related to the Prophets. It is evident, however, 
that Christian activity is closely interwoven with the Christian 
life and springs forth from it. How abnormal and wrong it 
would be should the Christian child only in its eighth or tenth 
year begin to receive the first instruction concerning God and 
His Son Jesus. In such a case the parental education would 
be directly unchristian, and the child would develop itself anal- 
ogous to a heathen child. Christian education and Christian 
discipline are from the very beginning associated with Christian 
instruction and with the Word of God. And all this is 
inconceivable without worship and prayer. The father and the 
mother, therefore, as far as they begin to impart Christian 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST 85 


instruction, themselves stand in the service of the Church, for 
they have the ministry of the divine word in the congregation 
of the home. Nay more, the ministerium verbi which the 
servant of the Church as catechist has to exercise toward the 
growing child, does not differ essentially from the Christian 
instruction which parents are in duty bound to give to a small 
child. In short the problem of Catechetics is essentially noth- 
ing else than Christian instruction in general. The word of 
salvation in Christ is to be made plain to the child and brought 
home to the mind and the heart, in order that the desire for 
salvation may be awakened, that faith in the accomplished sal- 
vation may be kindled, and that the catechumen may be led to 
make confession of his repentance and faith as a condition of 
his reception into the communing congregation. 

Churchly Catechetics, according to its fundamental form, 
is didactic, but it does not exclude the Christian pedagogics of 
the family. It aims at the meTdvora of the heart, the conscious 
and sincere decision for faith in the Person and Word of Christ. 
It is different with the individual natural man, who has already 
unfolded himself into a personality before he enters into rela- 
tion with the Christian Church. This is the case with all those 
individuals who grow up outside of the Christian Church, and 
whose noetic conscious life in thought and will developes under 
influences vastly different from the content of a Christian edu- 
cation. This takes place in Judaism, Heathenism, and Moham- 
medanism. Here the individual, before the Church comes into 
contact with him, has already acquired a store of knowledge, 
views, maxims, tastes, tendencies, and so on, which are the 
result of his peculiar surroundings. But this surrounding is 
positively erroneous, unchristian, or even antichristian. Hence 
the character of such a personality has developed under the 
power of blindness. The presence of evil is no longer at the 
lowest point, the minimum line, of extensiveness and inten- 
siveness. A person who grows up in such an environment is 
not only not a Christian, but is also already unchristian. The 
task here is not alone to combine instruction in the Gospel with 
a Christian education, but especially to remove the results of a 
positive unchristian training. And since those errors, lies, 


86 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


:mmoralities, vices, and so on, have become firmly fixed, they 
will offer an earnest resistance which can only be conquered by 
an opposing influence of corresponding power. The only 
power superior to the power of falsehood is the power of the 
Gospel. In order to overcome the hostile might of error @ 
mere process of instruction is insufficient. Acts of self-sacri- 
ficing love must accompany the mission-work of the Gospel. 
From this it follows that the difference between catechization 
and mission-work is not merely external and accidental, but 
highly elemental and essential, manifesting itself plainly in the 
method. In the former case we have the given basis of a Chris- 
tian power which the pliant mind of the child, with its yet 
undarkened conscience, assimilates. In the latter the given 
basis of activity is an unchristian power, from the bondage of 
which the more or less hardened mind, with its darkened con- 
science, is to be liberated and rescued. 

The metamor photic activity of the Church differs from the 
metanoetic in this respect that the latter has no other ground in 
the unconverted subject than the natural human gifts, talents, 
experiences and conscience, while the former has for its con- 
necting point the realized, objectively substantial implanting of 
Christ in man, namely the avayévynots (regeneration). But this, 
in its unfolding, is attached to Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, 
the sacramental acts instituted by Christ, and these are congre- 
gational, fellowship, or communion acts. Hence the meta- 
morphotic activity moves upon a congregational basis, having 
for its object not the man in his separation from, but in his 
connection with, the congregation. Therefore the metamor- 
photic activity in this respect is entirely opposite to the meta- 
noetic.* The metanoetic activity meets man as an isolated sin- 
gle individual who has not stood under any particular influ- 
ences. And when it does not meet him in this unwarped 
state, when it meets him as one who has already grown into a 
Heathen, a Jewish, a Mohammedan society or communion, it 


* According to Sir William Hamilton all those cognitions which origi- 
nate in the mind itself are called noetic. The term metancetic is broader 
and relates to the noetic influence ot social environment. 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST 87 


must first extricate him from this evil association, first isolate 
him and lead him back in his conscience to the omnicient Pres- 
ence and the supreme judgment seat of God. It can do noth- 
ing with him until he has permitted himself to be isolated, or 
until he has been led back into his inmost isolation, his misery. 
Only then does its positive work begin, whose object is to lead 
him into the communion of the Church, the congregation, to 
help him, to induce him to make a joint confession of faith in 
Jesus. 

The metamorphotic activity on the other hand finds a man 
in the state into which he has unfolded through his approach to 
the common confession of membership in the congregation, and 
as such no longer stands alone. It has to operate first and fore- 
most, therefore, upon the congregation in the unity of the com- 
mon life of faith, and only from this basis will it be possible to 
operate upon any single personality in respect of particularities 
and peculiarities. Thus we have here two principle activities: 
the cultus, in which the churchly activity takes the individual 
as a member of the congregation and aims at the cultivation of 
the joint or common Christian life; and the care of souls, in 
the second place, in which the churchly activity tries to build 
up the single personality according to individual peculiarity, and 
to purify and sanctify the same. 

Should one now place the cultus upon a parallel with the 
missionary activity, because both have to deal with communi- 
ties, and would parallel catechization with the care of souls, the 
proceeding would be very superficial and arbitrary. It has been 
said with good purpose that the two principal metamorphotic 
activities are similarly, yet not fully analogically related, as are 
the two metanoetic principles. It is true that the cultus has to 
do with an historically originated congregation, and the mission- 
work with an historically originated communion, namely, with 
Heathenism, Judaism, Mohammedanism, and so on, while cat- 
echization does not deal with a congregation, but with single 
personalities. Yet this analogy is very superficial. Internally 
considered Catechization has a much closer analogy with the 
cultus and with mission-work than with the care of souls, as 
everyone's own immediate feeling will tell him. As the cate- 


88 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


chist is confronted with individuals who are not as yet developed 
into determinate personalities, so the cultus is confronted with 
men from the kingdom of sanctified humanity, with members of 
the congregation, and in like manner has not to deal with sin- 
gle developed personalities as such, but rather according to that 
side of the Christian life, that is to say in its congregational, its 
community expression, in which all regenerated persons are 
like one another, having to go the same way of salvation. As 
the mission work on the other hand has to deal with developed 
unchristian personalities, so the cure of souls has to deal with 
men who are developed into Christian personalities. There- 
fore in Catechization as in Cultus a majority of individuals may 
be taken together for purposes of instruction, while the mission- 
ary cannot convert whole crowds at one time, but like the pas- 
tor, must labor with every single individual and person sepa- 
rately and in particular. These four activities, all of them, are 
church activities, organically associated with, and ceaselessly 
springing forth from, the divine life incorporated in the Church, 
the Christian fellowship and communion. 


New-Measurism 
iJ N CONTRAST with this extended presentation of the 


she historic position of the Reformed Church concerning 
(ta)|} the character of the Church founded by Jesus Christ, 

the meaning of the Sacraments, the object of Catechet- 
ics and Missions, the following fragment is appended to the 
doctrinal elucidation to show the attitude which Dr. Herman 
Rust maintained toward so-called wildfire methods to propagate 
the Christian faith and the Christian religion. He says: 


This somewhat startling statement from the pen of Rev. 8S. 
Z. Beam, D. D., is found in a recent number of the ‘‘Herald 
of the Interior’ (January, 1893): ‘‘The educational system of 
the Reformed Church has been sadly neglected, and in many 
places within the bounds of our Ohio Synod it has been sup- 
planted by the ‘New Measure’ and ‘High Pressure’ method so 
foreign to the genius and spirit of our beloved Zion. As a 
result the distinctive character of the Church of our Reformed 
Fathers has been either entirely lost or kept out of sight, and we 
present to the world the anomalous spectacle of a Church pro- 
fessing one system of faith, and practicing another which is alto- 
gether foreign to its methods and practices.’’ 


I have tried to find a negative or contradictory reply to this 
humiliating statement, but failed in my effort todo so. There 
are so many living examples which can be adduced to prove the 
truth of the assertion that it would be useless to offer a denial. 
The only complaint I might raise is this, that the writer has 
localized the evil in the Ohio Synod, whereas it is found to be 
more or less in evidence in all parts of the Church. Half a 
century ago almost the entire church of Pennsylvania had been 
set on fire by the hell and damnation sermons which at that 
time were preached against educated ministers, or machine 
preachers, and book-confessions, and our venerable Catechism 
was publicly denounced as the greatest obstacle to vital piety. 


[ 89 ] 


90 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


If at that time Dr. Nevin, the Great, had not risen up in his 
might and boldly aimed his ‘‘Heidelberg Brickbats’’ at the con- 
fused and confounding heads of the raving fanatics, our noble 
symbol of faith might by this time have completely vanished 
from the memory of men. 

If the esteemed author of the article alluded to, or anyone 
of his readers, should come to the conclusion that Heidelberg 
Theological Seminary is the cause of this widespread neglect of 
our educational system, he would make a grave mistake and do 
great injustice to the professors. All the young men who have 
finished their theological course here, have been obliged to 
memorize and study the Heidelberg Catechism, and have finally 
obligated themselves to conduct their ministry in accordance 
with the educational system contained therein. But a large 
number of the young men came from charges in which the emo- 
tional and high-pressure method was in full favour. Hence 
that method had their first love and it was therefore in some 
instances utterly impossible to awaken any interest in them in 
our educational system. And then they were often invited, 
even before their licensure, to assist certain high-strung preach- 
ers in protracted movements, or meetings, for an increase in 
membership, and in their honest aspirations to please they 
would choose some sensational subject for pulpit treatment. 
Then they would present it with such Ciceronian eloquence 
and in such pronounced sophomoric eulogistic style that good 
natured old ladies, expert judges of sermons and sermonizing, 
would afterwards assure them that better sermons had never 
been heard in the church before. This kind of admiration and 
tickling of the ears has induced many a young man not only to 
neglect his studies, but also to draw the false conclusion that 
the ‘‘new measure’ and ‘‘high pressure’ method is more effec- 
tive than, and preferable to, the tedious and laborious process 
of making believers by means of catechetical instruction. Thus 
the neglect of our educational system, and the consequent con- 
fusion incident thereto, have propagated themselves from gen- 
eration to generation, and God only knows where it all will 
finally end. 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST 91 


SUPPLEMENT 


Sure of the content of Truth as set forth in the symbol of 
faith, the Heidelberg Catechism, on the basis of Holy Scripture, 
the educational system certainly is the ideal and the normal 
channel in which the life of the Church ought to move to per- 
meate the whole of mankind with the conscious saving power 
of Christianity. But it appears, as time passes by, that actual 
conditions in human society, the ignorance of, and the estrange- 
ment from, the unadulterated truths and consistent experience 
of Christianity on the part of vast masses and multitudes of peo- 
ple call for and demand an organized Evangelistic activity of the 
Church on a grand and enduring scale. Dr. Herman Rust was 
in full sympathy with this profounder conception of the mission 
of the Church, and with this larger grasp of her duty to the 
unnumbered multitudes in the passing years, who, both in the 
churches and outside of them, do not know God, who have not 
tasted the love of Jesus, live in sin and iniquity, and are con- 
fronted with the possibility of dying in moral misery and utter 
despair. He believed in the true Evangelism of the Christian 
Church, her ministry and her people, the Evangelism equipped 
with wisdom, understanding, thorough knowledge of the Scrip- 
tures, the unfeigned gift of the Holy Spirit, and consecrated 
spiritual power. 


The Value of Church History 
ATURAL and easy it is for a parent to speak to his 


family, for a pastor to preach to his own people, and 

for a professor to deliver lectures to the students under 

his immediate instruction because he knows their wants 

and can adapt himself to their capacities. But it is not so easy 
to deliver a suitable lecture to comparative strangers, especially 
on a subject in which the great majority of people are very little 
interested. And such a subject is Church History on which I 
promised to speak to you tonight. This does not say, how- 
ever, that the subject itself is destitute of importance and inter- 
est, or that it is incapable of popular, instructive and entertain- 
ing treatment. On the contrary there are very few subjects 
in which the human mind can find such rich treasures of edify- 
ing, soul-stirring knowledge as in Church History. If you 
want to see the good, the true, and the beautiful in their great- 
est possible perfection as realized among mortal men, turn to 
the field of Church History where living examples of shining 
virtue, unfaltering devotion and angelic love will meet your 
eyes in countless numbers. Indeed we find here not only the 
highest achievements and noblest works of men, but also the 
wonderful providential and gracious dealings of God with the 
human race all exhibited in the history of the Christian Church. 
Here we are permitted to behold the gradual preparation 

of the divine plan of salvation until it reaches its completion in 
the bursting forth of the new creation in Christ, the center and 
source of all life and blessing. And here we learn how this 
heaven-born new creation, this Kingdom of God, made its way 
rapidly into the hearts and homes of men, how it entered into 
daily conflict with the powers of darkness and vanquished them 
all, and how it marched onward, from city to city and from 
country to country, filling the nations of the earth with light. 
hope and joy. No wonder, therefore, that many of the greatest 
and best men of all ages have found their chief delight in the 


[ 92 ] 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST 93 


study of Church History. Nor is it strange that they should 
have studied for thirty, forty, or even fifty years without 
exhausting the subject, or growing weary of it, because Church 
History presents an inexhaustible mine of important and attrac- 
tive facts or events, and many a single one of these events is 
amply sufficient to occupy the attention of the student through- 
out his life-time. 

Take for example the practical subject of missions. Exam- 
ine its origin, nature, and design, its power and progress in 
the days of the first great missionaries, and the wonderful 
changes which followed its blessed work. Trace its operations 
year after year, century after century, among all the different 
races of men. Study the spirit and changing zeal with which it 
was carried forward, the character and motive of those who 
were at different periods and in different countries instrumental 
in its propagation, and the various causes which led to its suc- 
cess among some people and brought about its failure among 
other communities, and you will find that there is more than 
sufficient in this one branch of Church History to occupy one’s 
mental and spiritual activity for many years. 

Or let us take the scientific branch of Dogmatics, which 
also belongs to Church History, although it has of late been 
treated independently. Every doctrine has its own process of 
development, and since its development was the work of the 
Church, therefore it belongs properly to the sphere of her 
history. This branch is so extensive and rich in subjects that 
not only the doctrines themselves, but also the history of these 
doctrines has been collected from the field of Church History 
and organized as a separate study. But while this is a fact, 
and may be considered legitimate for the sake of systematic 
order and convenience, both the doctrines and their history 
must forever remain embodied in the general history of the 
Church because they constitute an essential part of her inmost 
life and experience. Where could the nature, power and 
importance of the doctrines be more clearly and fully appre- 
hended than in their natural historical connection with the 
organic development of the Church? The abstract study of 
Dogmatics may indeed enable us to understand the diffent doc- 


94 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


trines, but the reasons why they are what they are; the pro- 
cess of long and fierce controversy through which they passed 
before their present character and form became fully fixed; the 
sreat importance attributed to them; the vast amount of men- 
tal, physical and spiritual labor, as well as blood, expended in 
their settlement, and the incalculable power and influence 
exerted by these doctrines upon the entire body of the Church, 
all this can be learned only from the pages of Church History. 

In studying these doctrinal controversies we are confronted 
with some of the greatest and best men of past ages. Their 
mighty power of reasoning, by which they penetrated the deep- 
est mysteries, removed all difficulties, and finally vanquished 
every opponent, challenges our admiration, while their unwav- 
ering firmness in their doctrinal positions fills us with rever- 
ence and love. The world can boast of many heroes on the 
battle-field, whose memory is justly honored, but I venture to 
say that not one of them all is as much entitled to our grateful 
remembrance as are those Christian heroes whose time and 
talent are wholly devoted to the propegation of the doctrines 
of the Gospel and saving faith. 

However the history of doctrines is only one of the many 
subjects which belong to Church History. In this vast field of 
human action our attention is claimed by the subject of Church 
Government, by Symbolics, Public Worship, Liturgics, the 
Papacy, Monasticism, Archaeology, Patristics, Scholasticism 
and Mysticism, the Sacraments, Hymnology, the Arts and 
Sciences, Religious Life and Morality, Judaism and Heathen- 
ism, besides a great many other important and instructive 
branches of investigation and study. Ail these subjects are so 
extensive and significant that on every single one of them cer- 
tain great theologians have spent many years of diligent labor. 
Hence it is not to be wondered at that Neander, the father of 
Modern Church History, devoted nearly the whole of his life- 
time to writing on these different subjects and yet reached only 
the Twelfth Century, and that Dr. Philip Schaff, in twenty-five 
years of assiduous literary application, reached only the Tenth 
Century. God grant that he may live long enough to complete 
his task all along the way, into the living age. 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST 95 


To show the students what interesting subjects claim our 
attention in Church History, I will give a brief sketch of one of 
the Fathers of the Byzantine or Greek Church. 

One of the doctrinal controversies to which I have referred 
took place in the former part of the Fourth Century, reaching 
its preliminary or first settlement at the Council of Nice in 325 
A.D. It was afterwards more fully concluded at Constanti- 
nople in 381. In consequence of this long spiritual contest the 
religious life of the Church had greatly suffered and hence stood 
in need of a powerful revival. For this purpose the Head of 
the Church raised up the proper instrument. In the renowned 
city of Antioch and in the year 841 a Roman captain (Magister 
Militium Orientis) and his noble Christian wife, Anthusca, 
were blest with their firstborn son, to whom they gave the 
name John asa sign that he should become a soldier of the 
cross. The father soon afterwards died, and the young mother, 
who was only twenty years old, solemnly vowed at the grave: 
“TI will continue to love thy son, and to him I will devote my 
whole life!’’ This vow she kept faithfully to the end of her 
earthly career. She instilled into the tender mind of her son 
the sweet truths of the Gospel, and the child by his upright con- 
duct justified the brightest hopes. 

In his thirteenth year the lad was sent to the school of the 
celebrated sophist Libanius, a heathen, who tried his best to 
further the development of the young man’s great talents, hop- 
ing that he might some day enjoy the keen pleasure of seeing 
John worship at the altars of the gods. Nor was this hope 
altogether unfounded. Being passionately fond of all that is 
good and beautiful, the Grecian poets, orators and philoso- 
phers filled him with the liveliest admiration and caused him to 
imitate and if possible to excel them. Soon his exercises in 
declamations and orations evinced such a power and beauty of 
eloquence that his teacher became joyfully amazed. The bright- 
est prospects for a high position in the Forum were before him. 
But while Libanius endeavored to raise his successful pupil to a 
high place of honor in the world, the anxious mother followed 
her beloved son with prayer and supplication. And her blest 
influence proved to be more powerful than all the glittering 


96 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


splendor of worldly greatness. He soon became disgusted with 
the deceptive art of oratory which was employed in the forum 
merely to obtain the applause of the multitude. Hence he 
turned away from the profession of the Law, and in company 
with his friend Basilius applied himself with undivided zeal to 
the study of God’s Word. Most happy was the mother who 
considered this turn in her son’s life to be a plain answer to 
her many prayers. 

Having now forsaken the places of public amusement and 
attending divine worship regularly in the church, it was not 
long until Meletius, Bishop of Antioch, became deeply inter- 
ested in him. John presented himself for baptism, and in the 
year 370 A. D. he was made reader of the Holy Scriptures in 
the church. He would much rather have joined the monks in 
the mountains because he loved solitude and spiritual entertain- 
ment. But his dear mother urged him with tears to remain in 
his appointed place, saying: ““Do not widow me a second time. 
Postpone what you intend to do until I am gone! ’* Alas this 
event filled his heart only too soon with the profoundest grief. 
The Lord called the precious guardian angel away from his side, 
and this caused him to follow the long cherished desire of his 
soul. John went into the mountains and the pious fathers and 
brethren received him most kindly. The solemn devotions, 
the singing of Psalms, the sacred studies and meditations, as 
well as the cultivation of the garden and field, were all exercises 
in which he found delight, and there he felt perfectly happy. 


He spent six years of rich spiritual enjoyment in this 
monastic life. But during the last two years of this period he 
lived in a dark cave and then his health began to fail, and this 
caused him to feel it to be his duty to respond to a call to the 
diaconate in the church at Antioch. Not being privileged to 
preach, he devoted himself unreservedly to the care of souls 
among the poor and the sick. Besides this he presented the 
congregation with many excellent devotional books, and among 
them with his own work of superior merit on the priesthood, 
in order to make the people conscious of their high calling in 


Christ. 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST 97 


However the office of deacon did not enable him to unfold 
the treasure of his spiritual gifts and powers to the full extent 
because he was not permitted to preach the blessed Gospel, the 
real element of his life. God opened the way. The Bishop, 
Meletius, was removed by death, and his successor Flavianus 
consecrated the earnest young deacon in the year 386 A. D. a 
presbyter. The very first sermons which he delivered in his 
new office made such an extraordinary impression upon the 
people that they all freely confessed they had never before 
heard such powerful and convincing discourses. Presenting 
the golden apple of truth in the silver vessel of classic language, 
with the eloquence of a Demosthenes, his auditors. became 
enraptured and lost their self-possession in excited admiration. 
And though he repeatedly entreated them to abstain from the 
heathen custom of giving vent to approbation or dissent, yet 
the electric sparks of his utterance kindled the feelings of his 
devoted hearers and caused them to interrupt him again and 
again with boisterous applause. The power of his sermons con- 
sisted chiefly in fullness of thought and convincing argumenta- 
tion, clothed in a lively, sweeping and impressive manner of 
delivery. In consequence of his sweet and captivating language 
he received the significant name Chrysostomus, or Golden- 
mouth. And this is indeed a very appropriate distinction. 
Speaking of himself, he says: *‘I preach like the flowing rivers 
though there should be none to drink their waters.’’ 

Chrysostom was not permitted to prosecute his labors very 
long in peace. In the year 887 Antioch became the theatre of 
a wild rebellion whose cause was the imposition of new taxes 
by the Emperor. The street lanterns were demolished, the 
public buildings were stormed by the infuriated mob, and, to 
render themselves fully guilty of treason, the statues of the 
Emperor were cast violently to the ground amid shouts of 
defiant blasphemy. .... The revolt was soon checked by a 
legion of brave soldiers who took bloody vengeance not only 
upon the guilty, but also upon the innocent. Alas for the poor 
Christians! Their individual lives were in danger and the 
whole congregation faced the possibility of being scattered to 
the four winds by the enraged soldiers. Then Chrysostom 


98 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


came forward in the full armour of the Holy Spirit and deliv- 
ered his twenty homilies ‘‘On The Statues,’’ which are prob- 
ably unexcelled in the literature of the pulpit. The excited 
multitude became quieted under his prophetic voice. They 
were induced to send the bishop on a mission of pardon and 
peace to the Emperor, and Theodosius granted them both. 
‘Why should I not forgive the people of Antioch, my fellow 
servants,’ said he, ‘‘since our Lord solicited pardon even for 
His murderers.”’ 

The fame of Chrysostom now spread over all the empire, 
and when the Bishop of Constantinople died, he was secretly 
carried away from Antioch and in the year 398 A. D. placed 
in the patriarchal chair. In view of the reigning sensuality and 
moral corruption among all classes of society Chrysostom at 
once instructed the lower clergy in the duties that would there- 
after be expected from them as ambassadors in Christ’s stead, 
and then gave them the brilliant light of his own example in all 
things. In vain did the courtiers seek to draw him into their 
society, and fruitlessly did they invite him to feasts and ban- 
quets. Without fear or favour he unveiled the moral corrup- 
tion as he had found it among high and low in the proud impe- 
rial city. His sermons had the same powerful effect as at 
Antioch. Thousands flocked to hear him, and hearing, ap- 
plauded him. It became a common saying that through the 
magic of his sermons he tamed wolves and tigers and changed 
them into meek and friendly lambs. 

But his bold denunciation of sinful pleasures aroused 
enmity against him, especially at the Court. His greatest 
enemy was Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria (385-412), known 
in history mainly by his participation in the Origenistic contro- 
versy, who envied him his high position. This orthodox rascal 
instigated the calling of a Synod at Chalcedon where Chrysos- 
tom was falsely accused of heresy, tried and condemned. Then 
the Emperor, influenced by gross falsehoods, was induced to 
banish him for life. ‘‘Let the ocean roar,’’ said Chrysostom 
to his weeping congregation, ‘the rock on which we stand it 
cannot wash away. Let wave be piled upon wave,—the ark of 
Christ in which we are sheltered will never sink! What am I 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST 99 


to fear? Death? Christ is my life! Banishment? The earth 
is everywhere the Lord's! The loss of earthly goods? I have 
brought nothing into this world; what can I wish to take out 
of it? I despise the terrors of this world and laugh at its glory!’’ 

The same night, after his departure, the whole city was 
terrified by an earthquake and this led the Empress Eudoxia to 
recall him. But his enemies did not rest. Having preached 
against the excesses of the Court and the populace at the dedi- 
cation of the silver statue of the Empress, Chrysostom was 
accused of having said: ‘‘Herodias again rages. Again she 
dances and institutes the dance. Again she burns with desire 
to have the blood of John in a vessel!’’ Applying these words 
to herself the Empress induced her husband, the Emperor, by 
the action of a Synod, to banish him forever. The statue of 
the Empress was erected near the church of St. Sophia. The 
enemies of Chrysostom, with the help of the Emperor and 
Empress, declared the restoration of a certain other synodically 
excommunicated bishop, and exiled the man they hated to 
Bithynia, then to the desolate city of Cucusus on the border of 
Arminia, and finally to Pityus, a city on the Eastern shore of 
the Black Sea. But Chrysostom never reached the place. He 
died on the way, in the neighborhood of the city of Comona in 
Pontus, on September 14, 407. Thirty years after his death 
the Emperor Theodosius II. removed his bones with great 
solemnity to Constantinople. 


The address on the value of Church History ends here. 
It seems to have been left unfinished, perhaps because of an 
interruption, and was never taken up again. Therefore one 
cannot determine just what further lessons, if any, Dr. Herman 
Rust sought to have his students and auditors draw from the 
strange and wonderful career of Johannes Chrysostomos. It 
was not his purpose, this is certain, to encourage even the 
monastic principle, and much less to commit himself to the 
institution of the priesthood which Chrysostom endorsed and 
helped to extend, because he made the false class distinction 
between the spiritual order and the worldly station, an error 
which lies at the foundation of the whole catholic hierarchy. 


100 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


These are not the lines in the life of Chrysostom which Dr. 
Herman Rust aimed to emphasize. No doubt his purpose was 
to commend the unselfish, consecrated and heroic ministry of 
the great bishop of Constantinople as an example worthy of 
imitation through all succeeding centuries. Moreover the fact 
lingers in my memory that my father honored and revered the 
career of Chrysostom especially in the light of his oratorical 
genius, as his frequent allusions thereto indicated. He often 
said that Chrysostom was as great a master of the homily as has 
ever lived, and pointed to him as an exemplar in that peculiar 
and difficult form of Scriptural exposition. Then, too, the 
greatness of the man viewed from every side always commanded 
his admiration, for in the history of Christianity the name of 
Chrysostom is imperishably associated with the names of Origen, 
Cyprian, Athanasius, Ambrosius, and Augustine. 


The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century 
in the Light of the Nineteenth 
Century” 

HIS SUBJECT is s0 extensive in scope and so rich in 


is material that it would be presumptuous on my part to 
promise a full and satisfactory treatment of it in the 
short time allotted to me. I can only touch upon afew 
prominent points of general interest, which, I hope, will not be 
without some benefit to my hearers. 


The question has often been asked whether the Refor- 
mation was really necessary and beneficial? The great body 
of Roman Catholic theologians from the start, and through- 
out the history since then, have given to this question a nega- 
tive answer, maintaining boldly that the founders of that great 
“revolutionary movement’’ were not guided by the spirit of 
truth, but by their own sensual passions and arbitrary will. 
The great body of Protestant theologians on the other hand, 
have answered the question in the affirmative, proving the 
necessity by the previous corruptions and by the beneficial 
results visible in Church and State. When the Reformers 
commenced their labors they did not possess any clear idea of 


* Dr. Herman Rust, in response to an invitation from the brethren in 
the East, prepared this address for ‘*The Spiritual Conference of Ministers 
and Laymen,’’ annually held in that part of the Church. He was about 
seventy-three years of age at the time and made the journey to Eastern 
Pennsylvania unaccompanied. He delivered the address on Thursday 
morning, August 7, 1890, in the Goethean Literary Flall, Franklin and 
Marshall Coilege, Lancaster, Pa. Sixty-four Reformed ministers, five min- 
isters of other denominations, five theological students and a number of 
laymen were present at the session. He met a great many former Mer- 
cersburg students and was 80 kindly treated that he returned to his home 
in Tiffin with a heart full of thankfulness and joy. 

( The Life and Labors of Herman Rust, by his son, page 240.) 


[ 101i ] 


102 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


what they were about to undertake or sought to accomplish. 
Only by diligent and careful study of history and the Holy 
Scriptures did they gradually reach the conviction that the true 
idea of the Church, as intimated by Christ and defined by the 
Apostle Paul, was far from being realized in the Roman Cath- 
olic ecclesiastical organization. From the Scriptures they 
learned that the Church is the divine-human product of the 
Resurrection Life of Jesus Christ, made to take effect in the 
world through the Pentecostal gift of the Holy Spirit, under 
whose regenerating and sanctifying influence sinners are sepa- 
rated from the world and united together in a spiritual body of 
which Christ is the Head. But from history they learned that 
this exalted idea of the Church had early been lost because false 
doctrine, hypocrisy, unbelief and moral corruption had marred 
and defaced the noble virtues of the visible body of Christ. 
The divinely ordained union and harmony of the two tenden- 
cies inherent in all finite bodies, the one to unite and centralize, 
the other to separate and individualize, had been disturbed from 
the very beginning of the Church. And while at first the cen- 
trifugal or individualizing tendency had boldly commenced to 
tear asunder what God has joined together, the centripetal or 
centralizing tendency soon afterward entered upon a process 
of aspiration and aggrandisement which gradually brought not 
only the Church, but also the State, under its control, and thus 
caused the individual to be lost in the general, in the sum, the 
mass, the multitude. The Roman Papacy had finally arrogated 
to itself not only absolute power and control over all individ- 
uals and nations in this world, but also power and authority to 
reach across into the next world to redeem or condemn any- 
one, according to the good pleasure of the Pope. Christ was 
no longer the only head of the Church and the ultimate dis- 
penser of divine and saving grace, but the Pope was exalted to 
an equality with Christ, and there was attributed to him the 
disposal of a treasury of superabundant grace, composed of the 
merits of Christ and His Apostles and the saints, from which 
he could supply all persons and peoples with a sufficient amount 
of salvation, upon the one and only condition of willing sub- 
mission to his arrogant and despotic authority. Thus the true 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST 103 


Gospel idea of the Christian Church had been pressed out of 
sight by a politico-religious institution of unlimited pretensions. 
But the Reformers discovered also that all along the historical 
development of the centralizing hierarchical tendency there had 
been a lively consciousness of the perversion of the true idea 
of the Church, and that numerous efforts had been made to find 
and restore that idea by a thorough Reformation. The Mon- 
tanists of the Second Century, the Donatists of the Third Cen- 
tury, and the Paulicians of the Seventh Century, together with 
the Cathari, the Waldensians, the Albigensians, the Brethren 
of the Common Life, and many other so-called heretical sects, 
seem to have been impelled to some degree, more or less, by a 
burning desire to discover and restore the true idea of the 
Church. That they held dualistic and pantheistic doctrines in 
connection with their one-sided and limited understanding of 
Gospel truth, no one will deny, nor can their persistent revo- 
lutionary efforts to poison the life of the Church with heretical 
elements be justified. Nevertheless it is certain that all those 
strange and threatening movements were so many loud provi- 
dential calls of warning that the worldly-minded Church might 
be brought to self-consciousness of her vast departure from the 
true idea of her God-ordained character and mission, and might 
thus enter upon a reformation to save herself from utter destruc- 
tion. But the grandeur of her political world-power had so 
blinded her eyes that she turned a deaf ear to all the complaints 
and prayers, warnings and solicitations that sprang from the 
anxious hearts of her own children. Imprisonment, torture, 
and death by fire and the sword were the only answer she had 
to give to them. Goodness and mercy had apparently been 
frightened away from the heart of the Papacy, a natural result 
of the intolerance and bloody persecution which had been prac- 
ticed for so longa time. Even down to the Fifteenth Century 
this spirit of unrelenting severity and devilish revenge sought 
its savage-like gratification in the execution of God’s own ser- 
vants simply because they strove to restore the lost idea of the 
Church by searching the Scriptures and preaching the Gospel 
of Christ. This fact alone is sufficient to prove the necessity 
of the Reformation. 


104 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


Moreover has not the Catholic Church herself acknowl- 
edged this necessity by successively calling three reformatory 
Councils? It wasa universal conviction throughout the Church 
that internal and external improvements in head and members 
were not only absolutely necessary, but also possible, and that 
therefore they could, and ought to, be realized. But the bond- 
age of their traditional system, in doctrine and practice, deprived 
them of the requisite freedom to commence and actualize a 
genuine reformation. Whereas the Council of Constance 
ought to have commenced with charity and mercy toward 
erring brethren, the great doctors of theology and law were so 
blinded and fettered by the cruel statutory condemnation and 
murder of heretics that they consigned the noble and heroic 
servant of God, John Huss, to the stake. 

The Papacy having thus proved the absolute necessity of, 
as well es its own utter inability to bring about, a reformation, 
a just and righteous Providence had to prepare other instru- 
mentalities through which to deliver the captive children of 
divine Grace from the awful bondage of the practices of sys- 
tematized superstition and political oppression. And these 
instrumentalities finally appeared in the persons of the justly 
praised, but also profoundly hated and abused Reformers, who 
entered upon the stage of action without any preconceived 
plan or purpose in view. Only after the Holy Spirit, through 
the diligent and prayerful study of the Gospel, had enlightened 
their minds, and Christ had given them the sweet assurance of 
His saving Grace, did they become fully conscious of their 
divine calling to communicate to other poor sinners the God- 
given joys of salvation. And when they saw with their own 
eyes and heard with their own ears the awful degradation of 
the Church, as exemplified by the grant of the traffic in indul- 
gences, they could not restrain themselves from a determined 
opposition to such unheard-of abuses. Having experienced 
the forgiveness of sins by faith in the crucified and risen 
Redeemer, they could no longer bear to see the untutored and 
ignorant people robbed of their hard-earned money by such 
outrageous falsehoods. In the role of an auctioneer of churchly 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST 105 


ware, Tetzel, for instance, proclaimed from his desk in the 
city streets: 


‘“When the money in the coffer rings, 
The soul out of Purgatory springs.’’ 


And when the Pope tried his utmost to silence the bold 
preachers of the universal priesthood and to prohibit the free, 
individual access of men to the Fountain of Grace, the hand of 
Providence protected the friends of the Gospel against the 
threatened violence. Prescott has well said, ‘‘Though none 
of the Reformers could claim such supernatural gifts as had 
assisted the first ambassadors of Christ in proclaiming the Gos- 
pel, yet the wonderful preparation of circumstances which dis- 
posed the minds of men for the reception of their doctrines, 
and the singular combination of causes which secured their suc- 
cess, and enabled men destitute of power and of policy to tri- 
umph over those who employed against them extraordinary 
efforts of both of these agencies, may be considered as no 
slight proof that the same Hand which planted the Christian 
religion, protected the Reformed faith, and reared it from a 
beginning extremely feeble, to an amazing degree of vigour and 
maturity.’’ Yes, indeed, the same Hand of Providence which 
planted the religion of Christ in the Apostolic Age was also 
the chief agent in the accomplishment of the extraordinary work 
of the Reformation. Anyone who cannot see traces of the 
divine finger in this grand epoch, will hardly be able to find 
God anywhere in the history of mankind. And such an one 
is entirely unfit to pass a truthful judgment upon the Reforma- 
tion. Itis for this reason that highly educated Catholic histor- 
ians, such as Staudenmeier, Moehler and Janssen, have repre- 
sented the Reformation as exclusively the work of ignorant, 
misguided, and positively wicked men, in order to communicate 
to their willing readers their own prejudice against, and hatred 
of, Protestantism. They claim to have written entirely from 
an objective standpoint, permitting men and facts to speak for 
themselves, while in truth their subjective intention and aim 
are visible on every page, and many sections might fitly have 


106 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


been designated with the Jesuitical formula, ‘‘The end justifies 
the means.’’ If such a process of dissection were applied to 
the character and life of their sainted men and women, as 
Janssen has applied to Luther and Zwingli and the other Re- 
formers, their sainthood would vanish like smoke in the air. 
We know very well that the leaders of the reformatory move- 
ment of the Sixteenth Century were poor sinful creatures, liable 
to make mistakes and to fall into grave errors, and that their 
old Adamic nature in some particulars carried them beyond 
the limits of Gospel truth and righteousness, it would be vain 
to deny. 

In their conception of the Deity, for example, they per- 
mitted themselves to be guided by the manifestation of His attri- 
butes in Nature, and especially by His direct Revelation in the 
Sacred Scriptures. From both of these divinely given sources 
they were led to apprehend Him as the Creator of all finite 
beings and the Sovereign Ruler of the universe. At the very 
opening of the Old Testament they found the sovereign justice 
of God in the sentence: ‘‘In the day that thou eatest thereof 
thou shalt surely die,’’ and His sovereign love in the promise 
ofa Redeemer. This sovereign justice and mercy challenged 
their attention and faith in all the subsequent experience of 
mankind, even down to the fulness of time, when the sinless 
Lamb of God, as the voluntary bearer of our sins, had to realize 
the sovereign retributive justice of God in inseparable connec- 
tion with the infinite sovereign mercy of His, and our, Heavenly 
Father. All this was plainly proved to them by the prophecies 
and types of the Old Testament, but especially by the obvious 
declarations of the Saviour and His inspired Apostles. 

However in their deductions from this doctrine of God's 
sovereignty they were not always in harmony with Scripture 
and experience. In order to discover the proper relation 
between God and man, and between sin and grace, they carried 
St. Paul’s doctrine of Election and Predestination to such an 
extreme that the freedom of man’s will and his consequent 
responsibility were lost in the sovereign government of God. 
Man was fated not only to be a sinner, but also to commit the 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST 107 


sins which he does perpetrate. To this false and dangerous 
conclusion the Reformers were doubtless driven by the prevail- 
ing Semi-Pelagian Synergism, and the many evil consequences 
in doctrine and practice which they believed had been occa- 
sioned by it. To ascribe to man not only the freedom and 
power to permit himself to be saved, but even to commence 
the work fof his salvation, without the prevenient grace of 
Christ, seemed to them to contradict the Scriptures and the 
experience of all truly regenerated men so grossly, that they felt 
it to be their duty to include in their monotheistic sovereignty 
the entire being and activity of man, the evil as well as the 
good. Reason and Scripture taught them that no created will 
can be independent of the Sovereignty of God, for if the cre- 
ated will were absolute, separate and independent, then the 
world could not be an organism, and there could be no general 
plan in it. All must be under the control of, and regulated by, 
the same all wise and almighty Providence. Hence we must 
hold that the activities and actions of the particular will are 
included in the divine plan, not absolutely bound, but in a free 
way. Man sins with the permission of God, but not by the 
freedom of his will, for if God had given him the freedom of 
choice either to obey or to transgress His law, there could have 
been no guilt, and the punishment inflicted upon man would 
have been cruel and unjust. It was not the use, but the abuse, 
of the freedom of his will which resulted in man’s ruin. The 
original sentence, ‘‘In the day that thou eatest thereof thou 
shalt surely die,’’ is still in active force all the world over. 
Wherever anyone eats of the forbidden fruit by transgression 
of the physical, moral, or spiritual law implanted in human 
nature, he becomes the subject of physical, moral, or spiritua] 
death. The sin and transgression in every case are the work 
of man, but the punishment attached to the operative law is 
the work of God. All this was plainly seen by the Reformers, 
and therefore they were compelled in the premises to ascribe 
exclusive sovereignty to the all-embracing Ruler of the world. 
Melanchthon, who at first had been foremost in asserting the 
doctrine of sovereignty, election, and predestination, subse- 


108 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


quently tried to modify his views because the Semi-Pelagian en- 
emies of these doctrines had, by their victorious advances, filled 
him with fear and trembling. He dropped the Supralapsarian 
Determinism which made God the author of sin, and altered also 
the Infralapsarian Predestinationism of Saint Augustine, and 
ascribed to the Human Will the limited ability to accept the prof- 
fered grace of salvation: Mentes docendae sunt; agit aliquid lib- 
erum arbitrium. Concerning this important incident Ebrard 
says: ‘Herein he (Melanchthon) was perfectly right. Already 
in his natural state, before his conversion, man has the freedom 
—never, indeed, to perform sinless works, much less to merit 
salvation by works—either to listen to the voice of conscience 
and the Law of God, to feel sorry for his sins and to fight 
against them, and thus to remain a salvable sinner (Romans 
2:7), or wantonly to smother the voice of conscience and to 
fall into obduracy. Then in conversion itself the Holy Spirit 
certainly first works in the heart a feeling for, and a foretaste 
of the truth, glory and blessedness of the Gospel. But pre- 
cisely with this He gives back to man the lost freedom of a self- 
decision, so that now it lies in man to follow the drawings of 
the Spirit, or to resist His influence. And finally after con- 
version and regeneration have taken place, there is no longer 
the abstraction of an evil will present in man, but a new man, 
born of God, has risen into action, who possesses the freedom 
either to crucify the old nature in the power of God, or through 
voluntary sins to suffocate the new man again, and thus suffer 
the shipwreck of faith. Melanchthon failed to emphasize the 
preceding work of the Spirit, through which the ability of self- 
decision must first be communicated to man.”’ 

Our own preceptor, Rev. Dr. John W. Nevin, one of 
the great lights of the Nineteenth Century, expressed himself 
on this subject as follows: ‘‘Although we are bound to hold 
and affirm the absolute sovereignty of God, as extending to all 
actions, yet on the other hand we must also hold that the 
actions of men are the product of their own free will. Noman 
is forced by God’s sovereignty to do evil. We would have no 
conscience if that were the case. God is absolute Sovereign, 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST 109 


and man is free to act. Both these propositions come to us as 
true because they are established in Scripture.’ Sin is pun- 
ished by sin. It weakens the moral sense and is followed by 
blindness, and blindness again produces new sins. Thus an 
accumulation of sins takes place, not, however, by the direct 
agency of God, but by man himself. The greatest blessings of 
God are often by the perverted will of man turned into his 
greatest curse. One of the plainest and strongest statements 
concerning the justice and mercy of God which has come down 
to us from the Sixteenth Century, is contained in our venerable 
symbol, the Heidelberg Catechism, where, in answer to the 
eleventh question, it is said: ‘‘God is indeed merciful, but He 
is likewise just; wherefore His justice requires that sin, which 
is committed against the most high majesty of God, be also pun- 
ished with extreme, that is, with everlasting punishment both 
of body and soul.’’ 

Since this is one of the most prominent articles of faith 
upon which the blazing light of the Nineteenth Century has 
been concentrated with a great deal of dissolving force, we may 
well ask whether it is still worthy of our respect and confidence. 
It is well known that some very learned and pious theologians, 
overwhelmed and guided by the brilliant light of the natural and 
ethical sciences, have felt it to be their privilege and duty to 
publish articles and books filled with theories and doctrines by 
which the retributive justice of God is entirely set aside. God 
is represented by them as being essentially Love, infinite Love, 
and as such bound by His own nature to exercise love and 
mercy toward all sinners, not only in this world, but also in 
the world to come. No matter how depraved a man may be, 
just as David continued to love his wicked son, Absalom, in 
like manner, and in far greater degree, does God continue to 
manifest His parental love toward all, and every one, of His 
wicked and rebellious creatures. He must give them an oppor- 
tunity even after death to decide in favor of salvation. 

Theories of this kind are not new and startling to persons 
acquainted with Church History, where the most wonderful 
philosophical and theclogical speculations and fancy pictures of 


110 TWIEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


possible truth are found in great abundance even from the 
Apostolic Age down through the centuries. We may venture 
to assert that nearly all the fundamental ideas developed by the 
so-called ‘‘New Theology’’ have been drawn from the Ante- 
Nicene period. The great mind of Origen was so prolific of 
novel ideas and theories that multitudes regarded him as a saint, 
while others abhorred himasademon. Up to the middle of 
the present century our honored teachers taught, and sought to 
convince us, that ‘‘God is bound by His own nature to punish 
the sinner, even though he should feel sorry for, and repent 
of, his sins. Not because God delights in punishments, but 
because He is the absolute Law, He must and does require sat- 
isfaction. His feeling toward sin is not something fictitious, 
but real. And evenif we sinners have an aversion to sin, 
how much more must that be the case in a holy and righteous 
Being. His justice is as absolute as His goodness; neither is it 
to be resolved into the other. The idea of God’s vindicatory 
justice would become something arbitrary if He were partial, or 
if He punished the sinner for His own pleasure. The punish- 
ment grounds itself at last in His love, which is the only foun- 
tain of all the other aspects of God’s character. Out of the 
fullness of His love He must inflict punishment upon His 
rebellious creatures.’’ This teaching was at that time consid- 
ered to be sound doctrine by all the Mercersburg students, and 
as being entirely in harmony with the teaching of Christ and 
His apostles, as well as with the Confession of the Reformed 
Church. And notwithstanding all the plausible and captivating 
pleadings in favor of a modification, or change, of this position, 
I do not see any necessity for any deviation from the good 
old path. 

The Sixteenth Century was intensely religious notwith- 
standing the many and deep corruptions of the Papacy. The 
piety and devotion among the common people was certainly 
great and sincere. As they had been instructed from infancy 
up, so they believed. To them the Pope was the head of the 
Church, with the power of the keys of Heaven in his hands, 
and a treasury of grace at his disposal. Hence childlike obedi- 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST ii 


ence to his directions and faithful attendance at the dispensa- 
tions of the means of grace, especially the Mass, would surely 
bring them salvation. Being satisfied with this easy, formal, 
mode of religion, the Reformers at the first found it to be 
exceedingly difficult to convince the people of their error. In 
this popular devotion to the Mass lay the principal strength 
and support of the Papacy. Therefore all the bishops and 
priests, with firm determination, resisted the reinstatement of 
the simple Apostolical celebration of the Lord’s Supper. In 
many parts of Europe the altars, with all their sacred utensils, 
had to be destroyed in order to eradicate the worship of the 
Mass. Being thus violently deprived of their staff of life, the 
chief and almost only food for their souls, the people in many 
places became desperate and swore vengeance against their 
over-zealous opponents, who on their part, believed it to be 
their right and solemn duty to remove everything that stood in 
the way of the establishment of simple Apostolical worship. 
Thus the great sacramental contest was inaugurated and ccn- 
tinued throughout the whole Reformation period. Transub- 
stantiation was proposed by the old party as the conditio sine 
qua non whenever the Evangelical party endeavored to advance 
the cause of their own simpler celebration of the Lord’s Sup- 
per, until finally Transubstantiation and the Mass were un- 
changeably established by the Council of Trent. 

But, alas, the same bone of contention, only under a dif- 
ferent form, had long before this entered into the ranks of the 
Protestants, dividing them into two hostile camps, and filling 
the leaders at times with such bitterness that in the light of the 
Nineteenth Century they appear almost as having been devoid 
of divine grace to govern themselves. Although the champions 
on both sides held the Real Presence of Christ in the Supper, 
and the necessity and blessing of its use, so that they were in 
agreement concerning the essential fact, and ought to have 
been harmonized thereby, nevertheless in the effort to appre- 
-hend the mystery, and to explain the manner in which the 
sacramental grace is imparted, they drifted into interminable 
intellectual warfare about the words of institution: ‘‘This is 


Te THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


my body.’’ The clear minded Zwingli saw from the very 
beginning that these words must not be taken literally, but in 
which part of the declaration to find the tropus, or figure, was 
at first dark to him, until the work of Gerhard Honius, De 
Eucharistia, led him to discover it in the word éott, which he 
understood in the sense of significat. However since the idea 
of a means of grace would thus be excluded, he subsequently 
adopted the view of a spiritual eating of the Body of Christ, 
agreeing therein essentially with Calvin. 

Luther in his earlier writings on this subject made the 
sharpest distinction between the sacrament and its substance, 
between figure and reality, and names faith as the mediating 
member between the two. Faith, the bond between sign and 
reality, is not only a sincere desire, but also an undoubted 
certainty, that just exactly as the sacrament says, so it will 
happen unto thee. Thus, then, the sacrament is a ford, @ 
bridge, a door, a ship, and a letter, in and by which we are 
transported from this world into life eternal. On this ground 
the controversy might have taken a milder course, but from 
1524 on Luther followed the example of the Catholic oppo- 
nents, and treated the Swiss theologians with disrespect, calling 
them murderers of souls, who were leading the poor people to 
hell. He would rather have seen the restoration of the Mass 
than the adoption of the Reformed celebration of the Lord’s 
Supper. This accounts for the frequently repeated expression 
that in the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper the Roman Catholics 
are much nearer to the Lutherans than they are to the Re- 
formed Church. Thus from the outstart an agreement was 
rendered impossible. (Herzog, Church History, Volume III., 
page 123). 

It is well known that at the colloquy at Marburg all the 
exegetical, philosophical, and theological arguments advanced 
by the Reformed delegation from Switzerland, rebounded from 
the inflexible determination of Luther, who had written the 
words, ‘‘This is my body,’’ upon the table before him, in the 
cust, to which he pointed with his finger whenever he felt 
the convincing force of their arguments. The whole disputa- 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST 1s 


tion is fairly presented in the sixth volume of Dr. Schaff’s 
Church History. Herzog’s account of the event, as given in 
the third volume of his Abriss der Gesammten Kirchenge- 
schichte (Erlangen, 1882), is also very interesting. When 
the Reformers met the last time, Zwingli, with tearful eyes, 
extended the hand of brotherhood to Luther, but Luther refused 
to clasp it, and said: *‘You have a different spirit from ours.’’ 
Zwingli advocated the principle of unity in essentials and lib- 
erty in non-essentials. ‘‘Let us confess our union in all things 
in which we agree,’ he said, ‘‘and, as for the rest, let us 
remember that we are brethren. There will never be peace in 
the churches if we cannot bear differences on secondary 
points.’’ But Luther considered the corporeal presence and 
oral eating of Christ to be a fundamental article of faith, and 
hence construed Zwingli’s liberality as indifference to truth. 
‘Tam astonished,’’ he said, “‘that you wish to consider me as 
your brother. It shows clearly that you do not attach much 
importance to your doctrine.’’ Even Melanchthon and the 
other Lutherans told them straightforwardly: ‘“You do not 
belong to the communion of the Christian Church. We can- 
not acknowledge you as Christian brethren.’’ Notwithstanding 
these insults the Reformed party joined the Landgrave in his 
request to Luther for the preparation of a Confession in which 
they could agree. Luther finally yielded and prepared fifteen 
articles, to fourteen of which they gave their ready consent. 
In regard to the fifteenth they stated: ‘““We all believe con- 
cerning the Supper of our blessed Lord Jesus Christ, that it 
ought to be celebrated in both kinds, according to the institu- 
tion of Christ; that the Mass is not a work by which a Chris- 
tian obtains pardon for another man, whether living or dead; 
that the sacrament of the altar is the sacrament of the very body 
and blood of Jesus Christ; and that the spiritual manducation 
of this body and blood is especially necessary to every true 
Christian. In like manner, as to the use of the sacrament, we 
agree, as in the case of the Word, that it was ordained by 
Almighty God in order that weak consciences might be excited 
by the Holy Ghost to faith and charity. And although at 


114 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


present we do not agree concerning the question whether the 
real body and blood of Christ are corporeally present in the 
bread and wine, yet both parties shall cherish Christian charity 
for one another as far as the conscience of each will permit; 
and both parties will earnestly implore Almighty God to 
strengthen them by His spirit in true understanding. Amen.”’ 

But this did not end the deplorable strife. Luther con- 
tinued with increasing animosity to oppose the Reformed 
adherents. ‘‘He called them heretics, hypocrites, liars, blas- 
phemers, soul-murderers, sinners unto death, bedeviled all 
over.’’ He even turned the blessing of the First Psalm into a 
curse in order to express his fiery wrath against them, saying: 
‘‘Biessed is the man who walketh not in the counsel of the 
Sacramentarians, nor standeth in the way of the Zwinglians, 
nor sitteth in the seat of the Zurichers.’’ 

When I first read the celebrated Symbolism of Dr. J. A. 
Moehler forty years ago, my impressions of the Reformation 
were somewhat modified, though I doubted many of the state- 
ments of the author. And in reading the great History of the 
German People Since the Close of the Middle Age, by Dr. 
Johannes Janssen, in which he allows the Reformers to reveal 
their personal inwardness by their own words and actions, I 
often silently asked myself the question, ‘‘How can that be 
possible?’’ And I doubted much of the testimony until I found 
that my second beloved teacher, Dr. Philip Schaff, in the sixth 
volume of his Church History, corroborates the same unpleas- 
ant revelations. It is not easy to conceive how so great and 
good a man as Luther was, could become so intolerant and 
abusive in language as to call his opponents a set of devils, and 
in his daily prayers to invoke the curse of God upon them. 
Only when we remember that it was customary in that day to 
use clubs and sledge-hammers to conquer, can we understand 
the form of the attack. It must also be remembered that the 
controversy involved the doctrine of the Person and Work o 
Christ, His divine and human natures and their relation to each 
other. Luther contended for the real objective presence of the 
body and blood of Christ in, with, and under the bread and 


OF DR. HERMAN RUST 115 


wine, and therefore Christ was actually partaken of by all 
communicants. Zwingli on the other hand emphasized sub- 
jective faith as the indispensable means to the true enjoyment 
of Christ and all His merited grace. Both of these views were 
afterwards united by the great theologian Calvin in his doctrine 
of the Mystical Presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, and as 
given in our irenical Heidelberg Catechism. 

For nearly four hundred years the doctrines of Luther, 
Calvin, and their followers have stood the test of time, though 
often assailed with the bitterest determination to crush them 
out. But will they be able to maintain their place in the life 
of the Church amid the ever increasing brilliancy of the light 
of the Nineteenth Century? This is indeed a solemn question, 
and who is sufficiently prophetic to answer it definitely? The 
vast amount of charming and highly beneficial light which has 
been gathered from the great book of Nature has already made 
such powerful impressions upon the minds of many theologians 
that they have begun seriously to doubt the necessity of retein- 
ing any longer the doctrines enunciated and the symbols of 
faith produced by the Reformation, because the relations and 
circumstances, and consequently also the spirit and wants of 
the people, have so greatly changed, that modifications and 
alterations have become indispensable. 

This plea looks so very plausible that many ministers, even 
in our own Church, have laid aside our venerable Symbol and 
have adopted doctrines and practices altogether foreign to our 
church-life, telling their people that the teachings contained in 
the Heidelberg Catechism were good enough three hundred 
years ago, but do not meet the needs of the present time. 
Others have called for certain eliminations and have publicly 
advocated the demand for new statements of faith. In other 
denominations whole groups of ministers, in assembly, have 
adopted solemn resolutions declaring that all infants are saved, 
thus rendering infant baptism superfluous. What consummate 
presumption! Could those preachers fathom the ‘‘secret Coun- 
sel and Will of God?’’ Perhaps they were swayed in judg- 
ment and doctrinal balance by the modern theory of ‘‘Evolu- 


116 THEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND TEACHINGS 


tion.”” We need not wonder that the secular papers made 
sport of them! 

While we have great reason to rejoice because of the 
unprecedented progress which has been made in all the arts 
and sciences, and with thankful hearts ought to acknowledge 
the great illumination which has been shed upon the Church 
and the State in this Nineteenth Century, let us not hastily 
relinquish the firm foundations of our Fathers, the doctrines 
which they wrought out from the Scriptures midst fervent 
prayer and tears, by which they lived and died and entered into 
life everlasting. 

















iii 
1 1012 01207 9564 — 


f rath | 





SAMI 7 Lt Lam bp ee , ae dowdy pele neyrne™ 
0 4 4 rr AL PAO he os Sie hater aad , 7 
fo ryehye cine : Api een ee fe Leas iat Pf yey 


ey oh Ue pale de ary ih 
pent 
aur 
ae 
pe 


at 
( me Pie tate beed 
tite ie ean caeamsayuvtnad itn het see eae 
if raid ty eeh cca ial at ns Hea MF na Reese ite 


" 


+. 
i A 
yh : prarvs : 
Hy My Me ' ibe peprar hice Pays Last ybated priberede 
io ie : 4 i eT athlark 
eres 7 ret oF O° pipe abaya CHEE 


2044 PU me 


i 


grvetit 
M 


ferrite. 

Teale Sr Anivate eR A 1m Pu 

velit saroetenees Belch Oneay 
He ae i aoe 


ft 
a Print 46 Cntr ae ae 
rhe 


A i 
ar Binge 
A thy 


; 
eg eth 
Sea eile: 
Fave es 


f iy yin 

het 

Ha stir age 
Htthete Ht an : tinge 


# rn 
a 


‘ileaeithioeinbit 
7 ie 4 HEY 
this bem 

bs He hiek 


Aya gern roy 
pipes Feb, te OR TS 
SIR eee practa hide hs 
hy es BWA Bs 
par perky be 
eins 
ha Ie te 
Ane 





